CNN, Fox blow the Supreme Court ruling-Politico

[Incipimus iterum]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/06/cnn-fox-fail-the-supreme-court-ruling-127544.html
comments thoughts

[Pheurton Skeurto]

lol

[muon2]

They might be forgiven considering how the decision was written. As you read the syllabus for the first two pages one could easily conclude that the mandate was unconstitutional. It's only on the third page of the syllabus that it is held to be a tax and therefore constitutional. My guess is that Roberts was very concerned to set precedent on the extent of the Commerce Clause so the decision led with that.

[Lief 🗽]

This is what happens when you want to report the news in 140 characters or less. American journalism is a joke.

[All Along The Watchtower]

This is what happens when you want to report the news in 140 characters or less. American journalism is a joke.

You mean entertainment.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I changed the title on this post.

[TJ in Oregon]

My thought is that there is a tremendous amount of pressure to be the first to report it when a monumental decision like this occurs, so people read documents fast to try and come to the answer as quickly as possible. When you do that, sometimes mistakes happen.

[Incipimus iterum]

I changed the title on this post.

ok

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, most people were expecting the mandate to stand or fall based on whether it was a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause, so when Roberts indicated that it was not, it was easy to see how the rush to judgement occurred.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

They might be forgiven considering how the decision was written. As you read the syllabus for the first two pages one could easily conclude that the mandate was unconstitutional. It's only on the third page of the syllabus that it is held to be a tax and therefore constitutional. My guess is that Roberts was very concerned to set precedent on the extent of the Commerce Clause so the decision led with that.

Sorry, I wouldn't forgive them for reporting something without reading it.  That's just basic journalism.  There's no excuse for an error like that.

[muon2]

They might be forgiven considering how the decision was written. As you read the syllabus for the first two pages one could easily conclude that the mandate was unconstitutional. It's only on the third page of the syllabus that it is held to be a tax and therefore constitutional. My guess is that Roberts was very concerned to set precedent on the extent of the Commerce Clause so the decision led with that.

Sorry, I wouldn't forgive them for reporting something without reading it.  That's just basic journalism.  There's no excuse for an error like that.

Yes, but as both TJ and Ernest have noted there is an even more important tenet of journalism - don't get scooped by the competition.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

They might be forgiven considering how the decision was written. As you read the syllabus for the first two pages one could easily conclude that the mandate was unconstitutional. It's only on the third page of the syllabus that it is held to be a tax and therefore constitutional. My guess is that Roberts was very concerned to set precedent on the extent of the Commerce Clause so the decision led with that.

Sorry, I wouldn't forgive them for reporting something without reading it.  That's just basic journalism.  There's no excuse for an error like that.

Yes, but as both TJ and Ernest have noted there is an even more important tenet of journalism - don't get scooped by the competition.

But it doesn't matter if you end up reporting the wrong thing.  Then, not only did you not really break the story first, you look dumb.  Under my management, the person(people) on CNN and FOX who gave the go-ahead to just announce it without making sure they were right would've been fired.

[Pheurton Skeurto]

I changed the title on this post.

lol

[muon2]

They might be forgiven considering how the decision was written. As you read the syllabus for the first two pages one could easily conclude that the mandate was unconstitutional. It's only on the third page of the syllabus that it is held to be a tax and therefore constitutional. My guess is that Roberts was very concerned to set precedent on the extent of the Commerce Clause so the decision led with that.

Sorry, I wouldn't forgive them for reporting something without reading it.  That's just basic journalism.  There's no excuse for an error like that.

Yes, but as both TJ and Ernest have noted there is an even more important tenet of journalism - don't get scooped by the competition.

But it doesn't matter if you end up reporting the wrong thing.  Then, not only did you not really break the story first, you look dumb.  Under my management, the person(people) on CNN and FOX who gave the go-ahead to just announce it without making sure they were right would've been fired.

I was watch CNN at the time and certainly if there were cameras or some sort of live feed from the courtroom this wouldn't have happened. As it was CNN had reporters both inside and outside and the shuttled discrete pieces of Roberts' speech out as they happened. The first piece was his statement about the mandate's unconstitutionality under the Commerce Clause and that was reported as such. I also saw a reporter wave around a copy of the opinion outside the building and if they glanced at it, it would have been consistent with the first statement from inside.

When the next report from inside came out I imagine that there was some confusion since it didn't mesh with either the first statement or the beginning of the text. But unless the Court wants to either bar the door during comments or allow live coverage I don't see how the disconnect is avoided with the competitive media.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Pretty par for the course for Faux. And now CNN is trying to out faux Faux.

MSNBC couldn't resist reporting this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/28/12463066-obama-initially-thought-mandate-had-been-struck-down

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

They might be forgiven considering how the decision was written. As you read the syllabus for the first two pages one could easily conclude that the mandate was unconstitutional. It's only on the third page of the syllabus that it is held to be a tax and therefore constitutional. My guess is that Roberts was very concerned to set precedent on the extent of the Commerce Clause so the decision led with that.

Sorry, I wouldn't forgive them for reporting something without reading it.  That's just basic journalism.  There's no excuse for an error like that.

Yes, but as both TJ and Ernest have noted there is an even more important tenet of journalism - don't get scooped by the competition.

But it doesn't matter if you end up reporting the wrong thing.  Then, not only did you not really break the story first, you look dumb.  Under my management, the person(people) on CNN and FOX who gave the go-ahead to just announce it without making sure they were right would've been fired.

I was watch CNN at the time and certainly if there were cameras or some sort of live feed from the courtroom this wouldn't have happened. As it was CNN had reporters both inside and outside and the shuttled discrete pieces of Roberts' speech out as they happened. The first piece was his statement about the mandate's unconstitutionality under the Commerce Clause and that was reported as such. I also saw a reporter wave around a copy of the opinion outside the building and if they glanced at it, it would have been consistent with the first statement from inside.

When the next report from inside came out I imagine that there was some confusion since it didn't mesh with either the first statement or the beginning of the text. But unless the Court wants to either bar the door during comments or allow live coverage I don't see how the disconnect is avoided with the competitive media.

Or just let CNN and FOX make fools of themselves... I'm fine with that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Was Faux as slow as CNN to correct it? There must have been 10 minutes where SCOTUSblog and CNN were in disagreement. Not exactly lightening fast there CNN.

Then again all of the major networks are capable of sucking. Election night 2000, after they called Florida for Bush, I remember checking the results. Bush was up 50,000 votes, but there were a lot of outstanding votes and they were from the liberal counties. I immediately thought "The entire media screwed up, this is too close to call". It gradually got close and closer. About half an hour later when the margin was a few thousand votes, suddenly the call started being retracted.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

They might be forgiven considering how the decision was written. As you read the syllabus for the first two pages one could easily conclude that the mandate was unconstitutional. It's only on the third page of the syllabus that it is held to be a tax and therefore constitutional. My guess is that Roberts was very concerned to set precedent on the extent of the Commerce Clause so the decision led with that.

Sorry, I wouldn't forgive them for reporting something without reading it.  That's just basic journalism.  There's no excuse for an error like that.

No excuse? It happened all over the place with Bush/Gore in 2000. I can't remember which organization did it, but one news organization read the end of the document first, declaring Gore the winner, when that in fact, was the dissenting opinion. Congrats.

It has nothing to do with Fox News, or opinionated news, etc. It has everything to do with being the first to break the news - which is huge. But hey, for Democrats who don't understand how the free market works, I understand why they don't get that......

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Suffice it to say, I was watching a live blog from SCOTUS while having CNN up at the same time. The conflicting reports made me hope that CNN was right. When I realized it wasn't, I felt like a knife went through me - same feeling as the majority of those in my office. Horrible. I felt so deflated. Worst. Ruling. Ever. For. The. Worst. Reason. Ever. Thanks, Roberts.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Was Faux as slow as CNN to correct it? There must have been 10 minutes where SCOTUSblog and CNN were in disagreement. Not exactly lightening fast there CNN.

From the video (although FOX's was clipped - I was sad I couldn't see MSNBC realize they screwed up, and I wished FOX's clips were longer), it appears not.

They might be forgiven considering how the decision was written. As you read the syllabus for the first two pages one could easily conclude that the mandate was unconstitutional. It's only on the third page of the syllabus that it is held to be a tax and therefore constitutional. My guess is that Roberts was very concerned to set precedent on the extent of the Commerce Clause so the decision led with that.

Sorry, I wouldn't forgive them for reporting something without reading it.  That's just basic journalism.  There's no excuse for an error like that.

No excuse? It happened all over the place with Bush/Gore in 2000. I can't remember which organization did it, but one news organization read the end of the document first, declaring Gore the winner, when that in fact, was the dissenting opinion. Congrats.

It has nothing to do with Fox News, or opinionated news, etc. It has everything to do with being the first to break the news - which is huge. But hey, for Democrats who don't understand how the free market works, I understand why they don't get that......

Being the first doesn't matter if you get it wrong.