Boy does that bring back a memory. A long time ago, I was writing a story for our station's website and had reason to mention in the copy that Bill Clinton had been impeached several years previously (although he was never, of course, found guilty or removed from office over Monica-gate.)

Not long after, I got an apoplectic email from a viewer, demanding my head on a platter, calling me every name in the book and demanding to know why I said Clinton had been impeached. The writer was adamant that it never happened, I was totally wrong, making it up and insisted on an immediate retraction.

Because our site didn't quite stretch back that far, I referred him to a BBC page, that began with the headline that read something like, "Bill Clinton Impeached."

I can only wonder what he must have thought when he looked at a credible news site like the Beeb, with a headline that showed he was 100% wrong. And surprise! I never heard from the guy again.

It's amazing how some people see - or don't see - what they want to see.   

It's also easy to forget that Richard Nixon resigned before he could be tried in the Senate on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. So only two, not three, US presidents have been impeached. Actually, zero have been impeached, since neither Clinton or Andrew Johnson was removed from office.

TomSanders wrote:

It's also easy to forget that Richard Nixon resigned before he could be tried in the Senate on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. So only two, not three, US presidents have been impeached. Actually, zero have been impeached, since neither Clinton or Andrew Johnson was removed from office.

Semantics but  Nixon resigned before the  full House actually voted on or impeached him and Clinton and Johnson were both impeached but not removed from office.

grilled.cheese wrote:

How are a Canadian radio host not be familiar with the US political system. 

Assuming there was a question mark intended, the answer is quite simple. If you hold an on-air position on a NEWStalk station in Canada's largest city, one should be expected to have some basic understanding of how our closest neighbour, largest trading partner, and world policeman governs (and hopefully cleanses) itself.

Chrisphen wrote:

I don't often listen to Jim Richards (he's one of the more unlistenable CFRB assets),
Jim finally caught up with Da Ali G Show and thought he could ape it. It wasn't funny, it was pathetic. 

+1

RadioActive wrote:

he constantly gets names wrong in introducing guests or talking about someone in the news,  

I hear him get facts wrong, mixed up or otherwise muddled. He often also frequently messes up titles, years when something took place, or has incorrect references to a historic event. Hey, everybody makes mistakes sometimes. And to be fair, Richards actually tries to do a lot of creative things on his show.

But when these lapses happen over and over again, it becomes a huge issue and your credibility suffers, especially on a station dedicated to news. The fact that he tries to laugh it off and play it as a joke in a charming way when occasionally called on it doesn't mitigate the fact that he's wrong so often. 

I tend to separate the station from the jock. I don't diminish the STATION's credibility when he's on. In my mind, his ISN'T a "news/topic" show, it's a fluffer, much like the Screaming Mimi @ 7pm.

As to him laugh it off, that's a crutch; and, rarely, crutches are endearing and listenable. How about before he tries something "creative", he actually does the rest of his show properly?