CNN, Fox blow the Supreme Court ruling-Politico

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.