"Dewey Defeats Truman" Moment for CNN & Fox News

[landtuna]

"The Supreme Court upheld the individual insurance mandate of President Obama's "Affordable Health Care Act" in a 5-4 decision on Thursday, sending cable news and Twitter into a frenzy.

Moments after the 193-page ruling was released by the court, several media outlets--including CNN and Fox News--erroneously reported on-air that the mandate had been struck down."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/health-care-ruling-scotus-cnn-gaffe-fox-news-154347515.html

 

[Silkie]

Heh heh heh - they must have tuned in as that "swing vote" was issuing the dissent ruling after the majority ruling came down while they were all listening to themselves talk.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Can't blame either network for that as the Court actually wrote and presented their decision in this manner.

They started out by saying "we find the mandate unconstitutional", but later on revealed that the majority
ruled it to be a tax. Can't really blame the reporters for that.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Can't blame either network for that as the Court actually wrote and presented their decision in this manner.

They started out by saying "we find the mandate unconstitutional", but later on revealed that the majority
ruled it to be a tax. Can't really blame the reporters for that.

Yes, we CAN blame them. They present themselves as professional journalists. We have a reasonable expectation that reporters will: Gather the whole story and help us understand what the whole story is about.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

Can't blame either network for that as the Court actually wrote and presented their decision in this manner.
They started out by saying "we find the mandate unconstitutional", but later on revealed that the majority
ruled it to be a tax. Can't really blame the reporters for that.

Yes, we CAN blame them. They present themselves as professional journalists. We have a reasonable expectation that reporters will: Gather the whole story and help us understand what the whole story is about.

Sorry Goat, gotta go with Freddy on this one. Circumstances like this morning's provided TV news anchors with no time for editing. All outlets, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc. were under the same time gun; reporters had to read each release piecemeal as it rolled off, affording no time for screening information. The nature of the news beast is that you do whatever it takes to keep the competition from "scooping" you. And that's what each network did today. I surfed a little and found each of them to be on their toes. I thought each channel did well.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

That is the never ending dilemma and challenge for journalists. Is it more important to me and my company to have the reputation of always being first, or is it more important to have the reputation of always getting it right.

I have nothing to back up this opinion and observation, but in the last 30 years I don't remember sitting through any kind of social discussion where someone was oooohing and aaaaaahing over the news source that always had it first. I do remember a lot of social discussion where people were discussing which source they could depend on to have it right... to have a version you could pass along to your friends and not be embarrassed later because you gave them "bad baloney". ;D

I will offer the following free guess... which is worth at least as much as you will pay me for it: The younger the audience, the greater the likelihood they will take notice of who reported something first. The more mature the audience, the more likely they are to be a bit unforgiving of those who in haste report it wrong.

 

[LKellerIII]

That is the never ending dilemma and challenge for journalists. Is it more important to me and my company to have the reputation of always being first, or is it more important to have the reputation of always getting it right.

Except who would actually care - or even notice - if CNN or Fox broke the story first by a few minutes. At best, it would be a brag they would use on a promo for awhile -"First with breaking news!" etc...

But with this fiasco, they both have egg on their faces and look like fools.

 

[Silkie]

Except who would actually care - or even notice - if CNN or Fox broke the story first by a few minutes. At best, it would be a brag they would use on a promo for awhile -"First with breaking news!" etc...

But with this fiasco, they both have egg on their faces and look like fools.

"We were the first to get it wrong".

 

[TexasTom]

Sorry Goat, gotta go with Freddy on this one. Circumstances like this morning's provided TV news anchors with no time for editing. All outlets, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc. were under the same time gun; reporters had to read each release piecemeal as it rolled off, affording no time for screening information.

I think that lets them off the hook too easily -- the appropriate thing to do would have been to report what the court was actually saying and save the interpretations until they had more information.

"Court rejects commerce clause justification for mandate" or words to that effect would have been an accurate reporting of what the Supreme Court was ruling -- but what CNN and Fox put onscreen was just plain and simply wrong.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

If the Supreme Court truly was misleading in the way they relayed the verdict, why wasn't all the rest of the media wrong?

Here's what the other media did:
AP moved a flash at 10:07 AM ET with the correct ruling.
NPR sent a bulletin to stations at 10:10 AM ET, with the correct ruling.
NBC had time to parse the decision, interrupt programming, and get chief legal correspondent Pete Williams on camera outside SCOTUS at 10:12 AM ET.
CBS had Scott Pelley and Justice Correspondent Jan Crawford both from Washington at 10:12 AM ET.
ABC had a special report with the GMA team on affiliates at 10:14AM.

On the other hand: CNN and FOX News first reported that the mandate had been overturned at 10:07 ET. FOX withdrew that almost immediately, 10:09 ET. CNN didn't issue a correction until 10:16 AM.

So, to review:
CNN and FOX News beat AP by less than one minute. FOX's correction still beat all the broadcast nets. CNN's long delay in making a correction is what was the real mistake here.

 

[TheBigA]

If the Supreme Court truly was misleading in the way they relayed the verdict, why wasn't all the rest of the media wrong?

I agree. MSNBC.com was correct from the start, and they beat NBC TV by 3 minutes. The fact that CNN and CNN.com stayed wrong after everyone else had the correct headline is embarrassing. Definitely a problem in their system. Especially for CNN.com. Imagine having all four nets on and seeing split headlines.

Congrats to whoever first compared it to Dewey beats Truman. That's exactly right. And the picture is priceless.

 

[cspotrun]

i don't fault either cnn or fox, when the 1st part of the ruling stated the mandate was struck down, THAT should have been the story & the headline. who would have thought that chief justice roberts would RE-WRITE the bill, and put the word "TAX" in it in order to make it somehow Constitutional.. Roberts not only TRICKED the media, he played a Horrible trick on the American people.

 

[TheBigA]

Roberts not only TRICKED the media, he played a Horrible trick on the American people.

Not at all. He gave conservatives a sword. Had he voted no, the story would have gone away. Now it won't.

This is one of those situations where the good news is bad news in disguise. He changed the subject from "mandate" to "tax." Which do you think is worse during an election?

 

[dhett]

If you're so focused on being the first to break the story that you can't wait for the whole story to be told, you're moving into yellow journalism.

Everyone has known since the hearing in March that while one of the administration's arguments before the Supreme Court was that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the administration also argued that the Act was constitutional as a tax, and that Congress knew it was a tax, according to Donald Verilli's own statements. There was no reason to assume that the ruling was complete after it was announced that the Act was unconstitutional under Interstate Commerce; there was another part of the argument.

CNN and Fox News were irresponsible for posting the false story and are deserving to be mocked for it. CNN was especially irresponsible in waiting so long to take down the incorrect story.

 

[Robnoxious]

How did CNN-International report it? Unlike the CNN-US counterpart, CNN-I doesn't have it's head up it's ass.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Can't blame either network for that as the Court actually wrote and presented their decision in this manner.

They started out by saying "we find the mandate unconstitutional", but later on revealed that the majority
ruled it to be a tax. Can't really blame the reporters for that.

Yes, we CAN blame them. They present themselves as professional journalists. We have a reasonable expectation that reporters will: Gather the whole story and help us understand what the whole story is about.

You are correct in that they could have waited until they read and digested the entire decision before
reporting on the results. But with the competitive pressures, and the entire country waiting with baited
breath to see what their decision was, you knew that was never going to happen.

I stand by my opinion that the Court made this unusually tricky for reporters with the clumsy, stilted
manner in which they wrote this opinion.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

You are correct in that they could have waited until they read and digested the entire decision before
reporting on the results. But with the competitive pressures, and the entire country waiting with baited
breath to see what their decision was, you knew that was never going to happen.

I stand by my opinion that the Court made this unusually tricky for reporters with the clumsy, stilted
manner in which they wrote this opinion.

The networks are in the news business, and building and keeping audience is their need. Yes, there is pressure to be quick. There is pressure to be accurate. Those two things work against each other and they have to make their choices under the extreme pressure of time. Nobody died (so far as I know) because two channels jumped the gun a bit so I have to agree with you that they acted reasonable.

Now, let me quarrel a bit with you about the "clumsy, stilted manner in which the court wrote their opinion".

The networks feel the pressure of time... as in RIGHT NOW!

The court feels the pressure of time.... as in this written decision will last for what appears to be an ETERNITY. The court was not writing primarily for the foaming-at-the-mouth citizens standing in front of the Supreme Court Building and gathered around radio and TV receivers nationswide. The court wrote it's opinion for the purpose of being digested by deep thinking, craftsman quality legal folks for maybe the next 100 years, and to be read over and over again by future gatherings of the Supreme Court itself. I am guessing that the justices and their staff people agreed on wording, and the order of the wording, to be meaningful for the academic mind in future years. Future generations will not only read the words of the decision, but will look for additional shades of color to be indicated by the order of the words To some extent, the sometimes less-than-academic minds of journalists spent last night trying to help us see all the possible meanings buried in the actual words produced by the court.

So. I have pointed out the role of ACADEMIC minds in the future. I have pointed out the role of SOMETIMES LESS-THAN-ACADEMIC minds of the journalism corps that was teaching us last night. (In all fairness, some journalists have EXCELLENT academic minds.) Now I must point out the next step. There are numerous PEA-SIZED minds at work in the Senate and House of Representatives. As these people give us their reading of the decision and begin writing new bills to repeal or to improve the Affordable Healthcare Act, we will have a lot of things to write about and carp about in various forums. (In all fairness, some legislators have EXCELLENT academic minds. Often the PEA-SIZED minds outshout them.)

We who follow the world of broadcasting, and those who work in the world of broadcasting, will have lots of opportunity to come to forums like this and comment on the events of the next few months, and the next year related to shaping the future of healthcare funding in this nation.

 

[Silkie]

Any way you slice it, the President of the United States articulated it best:

"The Supreme Court of the United States has spoken!"

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

Roberts not only TRICKED the media, he played a Horrible trick on the American people.

Not at all. He gave conservatives a sword. Had he voted no, the story would have gone away. Now it won't. This is one of those situations where the good news is bad news in disguise. He changed the subject from "mandate" to "tax." Which do you think is worse during an election?

Good point. Some media spinners have also observed that Roberts' ruling helped distance the high court from any appearance of legislating from the bench, a lynchpin concern of the right wing. They point out that Robert's stance sanctioned the Supreme Court's true role, in this case deciding the constitutionality of Healthcare Reform, and that it has no business debating it's credibility. My opinion: ObamaCare is already a runaway spending boondoggle. I hope it is repealed, but that is Congress's job. To date, I see no evidence of judicial impropriety or political hanky-panky by Judge Roberts. Not yet at least.

 

[TheBigA]

Good point. Some media spinners have also observed that Roberts' ruling helped distance the high court from any appearance of legislating from the bench, a lynchpin concern of the right wing.

Too bad the other conservatives don't understand that.

My opinion: ObamaCare is already a runaway spending boondoggle.

I think that will change once everyone buys health insurance. The entire law hasn't taken effect yet, and won't for two more years, so it's impossible to fairly assess the results. The fact is that this is the exact law that Gingrich wanted in 1993 and Romney brought to Massachusetts ten years ago. Had someone else got it passed, conservatives would have loved it.