Editor’s Pick
JUNE 29, 2012 2:16PM
Why CNN and Fox Wrongly Reported the Supreme Court Health Care Ruling
The initially incorrect reporting by Fox and CNN of the US Supreme Court health care ruling yesterday will go down in history and long be cited in journalism courses along with Dewey beating Truman in 1948 according to the infamous Chicago Tribune banner headline and other examples of premature breaking news. It was the most enjoyable part of the ruling other than the ruling itself.
But why did this happen? The superficial answer, true enough, is that neither Fox nor CNN read far enough in Chief Justice Roberts' opinion to see he was upholding the mandate in the Affordable Health Care law as a tax, after rejecting its constitutionality under the commerce clause.
But there are deeper reasons.
CNN has fallen to a weak third place in the 24/7 all-news cable line-up. It attracts not only the lowest number of viewers but likely staff and interns at all levels who would rather be someplace else. Marshall McLuhan observed this sinking ship phenomenon in media when major newspapers began going on strike in the 1960s - they were going on strike, temporarily shutting down, McLuhan noted, as prelude to their permanent shut down, because fewer people were reading them, anyway. Lack of audience and lack of production acumen feed one another in a vicious, downward, mutually destructive cycle. McLuhan not only saw the decline of newspapers in response to the screens of television, but accurately foresaw their decline in response to 21st century social media, which are now also challenging cable.
CNN is not about to shut down, but it is already in this cycle of decline, and needs to take special care not to feed it.
Fox, still in first place in cable news land, made the miscall for a very different reason. Fox, despite its "fair and balanced" moniker, has long seen and reported the world through right-wing glasses. Its top talent - Shep Smith, Bret Baier, and even Bill O'Reilly - can and do have independent views. But its staff at all levels wears ideological blinders. Fox not only misread the Supreme Court decision by stopping too soon in its reading, but likely did that because that's what the Fox people who did the reading wanted it to say. They read as much as they needed to confirm their hopes. Seeing support for one's views can be a powerful source of distortion when encountering new material.
I suppose the same could be said for MSNBC, which didn't want to see the ruling strike down Obamacare and reported the ruling correctly. On the other hand, Pete Williams, who brought the opinion to MSNBC air, is one of the sharpest legal reporters in the business. Given the decline of CNN and the ideology of Fox, it is unlikely he'd be anywhere other than reporting for MSNBC.
But why did this happen? The superficial answer, true enough, is that neither Fox nor CNN read far enough in Chief Justice Roberts' opinion to see he was upholding the mandate in the Affordable Health Care law as a tax, after rejecting its constitutionality under the commerce clause.
But there are deeper reasons.
CNN has fallen to a weak third place in the 24/7 all-news cable line-up. It attracts not only the lowest number of viewers but likely staff and interns at all levels who would rather be someplace else. Marshall McLuhan observed this sinking ship phenomenon in media when major newspapers began going on strike in the 1960s - they were going on strike, temporarily shutting down, McLuhan noted, as prelude to their permanent shut down, because fewer people were reading them, anyway. Lack of audience and lack of production acumen feed one another in a vicious, downward, mutually destructive cycle. McLuhan not only saw the decline of newspapers in response to the screens of television, but accurately foresaw their decline in response to 21st century social media, which are now also challenging cable.
CNN is not about to shut down, but it is already in this cycle of decline, and needs to take special care not to feed it.
Fox, still in first place in cable news land, made the miscall for a very different reason. Fox, despite its "fair and balanced" moniker, has long seen and reported the world through right-wing glasses. Its top talent - Shep Smith, Bret Baier, and even Bill O'Reilly - can and do have independent views. But its staff at all levels wears ideological blinders. Fox not only misread the Supreme Court decision by stopping too soon in its reading, but likely did that because that's what the Fox people who did the reading wanted it to say. They read as much as they needed to confirm their hopes. Seeing support for one's views can be a powerful source of distortion when encountering new material.
I suppose the same could be said for MSNBC, which didn't want to see the ruling strike down Obamacare and reported the ruling correctly. On the other hand, Pete Williams, who brought the opinion to MSNBC air, is one of the sharpest legal reporters in the business. Given the decline of CNN and the ideology of Fox, it is unlikely he'd be anywhere other than reporting for MSNBC.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
bill benzon
Poppi Iceland
PattyJane
N. Jordan
Dr. Vanessa Neumann
CPH/NYC
Salon.com
Comments
Rated
The beauteous and bright Shannon Bream merely reported on what she read as she read it, thus satisfying the public's insatiable greed for instant gratification. When the Court reached its holding, Bream was right there to report it.
All this hyper analysis is a real reach for a story that simply isn't there.
But the delightful stereotype (a word born in newspapers) of the reporter-rascals who give us such pleasure in movies like "His Girl Friday" grows more distant every day.
Stories like the ACA decision aren't breaking news; they're staged media events that are treated like breaking news. Battalions of "reporters" are on hand to do -- what? Read the first couple of pages of a complex legal decision and instantly decide whether it means "yes" or "no." An unenviable but inescapable task, made necessary by the public expectation of instant analysis.
As despicable as Fox News is, as lame as CNN has become, I say this: have a care for the poor wretches who make their livings in this circus atmosphere. They're being forced to understand something in seconds that is still being analyzed days later.
Even though the "Dewey Beats Truman" analogy seems to fit, the world has changed since then. False & inaccurate heds go up on news media websites all the time. It happens so often no one even complains. And if they do, the pixels get magically re-arranged and all is well with the world. A year from now, hell, a week from now, no one's going to remember or care that these two outfits got it wrong.
I think we all got a kick out of the "Dewey beats Truman" moment in this thing (as Truman got out of the original)...and "getting a kick" out of anything these days is a good thing. So, let's all smile and enjoy our moment of gotcha.
Terrific analysis, Paul...as usual!
The commerce clause was where all thought the battle was being fought. Remember the Obama administration from day one iterated that this "Was not a tax". In the end, it is the largest tax increase on the middle class in our history.
We can find fault with both sides but, when but when GB41 said "read my lips......." Republicans stayed home in 1992. When Obama said the same thing for four years then had his lawyers argue that it was- right before closing arguments , the left looks the other way.
The shock from the Robert's switch was that it was political activism hiding behind the cloak of jurisprudence.
One thing is resolved: Freedom is the Government cannot stop you from eating a Big Mac but, it can tax you until you cannot afford to eat one. Or in another way-it cannot make you eat spinach but, it can levy a non-spinach eating tax on you.
We lust took the limits of congress out of the Constitution while acting as if he (Roberts) did the opposite."Congress shall pass no law......but, even if it cannot compel you to an action-it can tax you to that end-or at least enough of you.
You suggest through the use of sarcasm that it's somehow downbeat to fail to go along with the author's attribution of dark, unconscious motives to reporters. This strikes me as typical reversal of logic that I've come to expect from liberals.
Forgive me for commenting in words rather than coyly arranged punctuation marks.
The script the "Mainstream Media" had before us said the law wouel be struck down. They read that scritp and ignored the Truth -- CNN doing so for a full seven minutes.
No one has an exclusive. No one broke the story because we all knew it was coming, where it was coming from, and pretty much the outcome. So why the rush?
Call me an old dog, but even 10 years ago broadcast stations, especially when the knew it was coming had their SCOTUS reporter on hand to ANALYZE the release before they open their mouths.
Sheesh, because of the fear that another outlet will "scoop" them, and there is no "scoop" here, everyone got the same report, no one bothered to read it in it's entirety and have an EDITORS meeting for FIVE minutes to decide how they would present it.
Nope, not any more. Getting there first is all that matter even when they are WRONG.
Lezlie