The April 12, 2012, edition of Hong Kong’s South China Post, I think, misrepresents what Ozzie Guillen said in the Tuesday press conference in Miami. In a promo on the main Sports page, the paper says that Guillen said the problem was a “misquote” (see above).
But I’m pretty sure he didn’t use that word. “Misinterpretation”? I don’t think he used that word either, but it works here. “Mistranslation”? That’s more like it–from his point of view. I don’t think he ever complained about a “misquote”.
The South China Post printed an Associated Press account of the press conference. The article correctly puts it this way:

Guillen took full responsibility for his comments, but said they were misinterpreted by Time‘s reporter.

The AP account notes that “Time said it stood by its story.” And that’s easy to do, I think, because the whole “misinterpretation” and “mistranslation” evidently happened within Mr. Guillen’s head. During the press conference, in Spanish, he blamed the problem he had with the Time story on his own inability in the interview with Time to say in English what he was thinking in Spanish. He put it this way,

“It was a personal mistake of the thing I had in my mind and what I said. What I wanted to say in Spanish, I said in English in a wrong way.”

Still, it’s a leap–from the “I love Fidel Castro” in English to the (paraphrase here) ‘I don’t love or admire Fidel Castro’ in Spanish.
In any case, the promo (above) should be worded differently. Too often, I think, people who are embarrassed by or criticized for a statement attributed to them, raise the “misquote” complaint too quickly and too often. This is NOT what Guillen has said happened to his words. He did not fall into the knee-jerk “I was misquoted” trap.