I was not watching CNN this morning, but according to the HuffPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/cnn-supreme-court-health-car... they and Fox News jumped to the wrong conclusion when the decision was
first released this morning, announcing that the Affordable Care Law had
basically been overturned"
"Wow, that's a dramatic moment," Wolf Blitzer said, as a chyron saying
"SUPREME CT. KILLS INDIVIDUAL MANDATE" flashed on the screen. "The Justices
have just gutted, Wolf, the centerpiece provision of the health care law,"
John King said, adding that it was a "direct blow to President Obama."
A few minutes later they had to reverse and correct themselves: Later,
Boulduan returned to correct the initial report: "'It's a huge, huge
victory for President Obama' Blitzer said."
Apparently Fox News went through a very similar sequence.
CNN justified the mistake by saying: "the Court had released a "very
confusing large opinion"; they said that the decision was "thick" and
"legally dense," scanning the papers on-air."
This is basically bullshit. I do understand why CNN initially thought the
opinion was going against Obamacare. I have read the first ten pages of the
opinion (the full opinion is 193 pages long, you can read it too at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-health-care-re...)
and it begins with Chief Justice Roberts announcing that the individual
mandate is not a valid exercise of congressional power under the commerce
clause of the constitution. Legal analysis had largely turned on this
point, and it was widely assumed that if the court failed to justify the
law under the commerce clause it would rule against it. But less than two
pages later Roberts clearly explains that the mandate is permissible under
the federal government's taxing authority.
I timed myself, and it took my one minute and 44 seconds to get to page 4
of the opinion where this is stated. Granted, by that time I already knew
what was coming, but certainly informed reporters and legal analysts could
have gotten there in, say 5 minutes, or even 10, on a first reading? All
the cable newscasts had to do was take those 5 or 10 minutes to read the
damn opinion, clearly the most important Supreme Court decision in the last
decade, one of the most importatant in the last half century, before
announcing to the world something that was not just wrong, but the exact
opposite of what was right.
This should be more than just a little sidebar, mildly embarrassing. This
should be a major humiliation. CNN should fear that viewers will no longer
tune in to them to get credible information about important stories, since
they can not be trusted to get it right. Nothing should be more important
to the people who run CNN than making sure that something like this never,
ever happens. But of course in the contemporary climate, being accurate is
way down the list of priorities at CNN.
It is the one thing I find most silly about cable news... that they
think "firsties" matters. Get it right and put some thought into it --
do that and it doesn't matter to me whether you report things 30
seconds or 30 minutes later than the others.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:35 AM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was not watching CNN this morning, but according to the HuffPost:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/cnn-supreme-court-health-car... > both they and Fox News jumped to the wrong conclusion when the decision was
> first released this morning, announcing that the Affordable Care Law had
> basically been overturned"
> "Wow, that's a dramatic moment," Wolf Blitzer said, as a chyron saying
> "SUPREME CT. KILLS INDIVIDUAL MANDATE" flashed on the screen. "The Justices
> have just gutted, Wolf, the centerpiece provision of the health care law,"
> John King said, adding that it was a "direct blow to President Obama."
> A few minutes later they had to reverse and correct themselves: Later,
> Boulduan returned to correct the initial report: "'It's a huge, huge victory
> for President Obama' Blitzer said."
> Apparently Fox News went through a very similar sequence.
> CNN justified the mistake by saying: "the Court had released a "very
> confusing large opinion"; they said that the decision was "thick" and
> "legally dense," scanning the papers on-air."
> This is basically bullshit. I do understand why CNN initially thought the
> opinion was going against Obamacare. I have read the first ten pages of the
> opinion (the full opinion is 193 pages long, you can read it too at
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-health-care-re...)
> and it begins with Chief Justice Roberts announcing that the individual
> mandate is not a valid exercise of congressional power under the commerce
> clause of the constitution. Legal analysis had largely turned on this point,
> and it was widely assumed that if the court failed to justify the law under
> the commerce clause it would rule against it. But less than two pages later
> Roberts clearly explains that the mandate is permissible under the federal
> government's taxing authority.
> I timed myself, and it took my one minute and 44 seconds to get to page 4 of
> the opinion where this is stated. Granted, by that time I already knew what
> was coming, but certainly informed reporters and legal analysts could have
> gotten there in, say 5 minutes, or even 10, on a first reading? All the
> cable newscasts had to do was take those 5 or 10 minutes to read the damn
> opinion, clearly the most important Supreme Court decision in the last
> decade, one of the most importatant in the last half century, before
> announcing to the world something that was not just wrong, but the exact
> opposite of what was right.
> This should be more than just a little sidebar, mildly embarrassing. This
> should be a major humiliation. CNN should fear that viewers will no longer
> tune in to them to get credible information about important stories, since
> they can not be trusted to get it right. Nothing should be more important to
> the people who run CNN than making sure that something like this never, ever
> happens. But of course in the contemporary climate, being accurate is way
> down the list of priorities at CNN.
> --
> TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
The likelihood of this being the first segment (or at least part of it) for both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report tonight strikes me as nearly 100 percent.
Subject: [TV orNotTV] SCOTUS Obamacare Ruling Provides Sorkin More Material
I was not watching CNN this morning, but according to the HuffPost: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/cnn-supreme-court-health-car... both they and Fox News jumped to the wrong conclusion when the decision was first released this morning, announcing that the Affordable Care Law had basically been overturned"
"Wow, that's a dramatic moment," Wolf Blitzer said, as a chyron saying "SUPREME CT. KILLS INDIVIDUAL MANDATE" flashed on the screen. "The Justices have just gutted, Wolf, the centerpiece provision of the health care law," John King said, adding that it was a "direct blow to President Obama." A few minutes later they had to reverse and correct themselves: Later, Boulduan returned to correct the initial report: "'It's a huge, huge victory for President Obama' Blitzer said." Apparently Fox News went through a very similar sequence. CNN justified the mistake by saying: "the Court had released a "very confusing large opinion"; they said that the decision was "thick" and "legally dense," scanning the papers on-air." This is basically bullshit. I do understand why CNN initially thought the opinion was going against Obamacare. I have read the first ten pages of the opinion (the full opinion is 193 pages long, you can read it too at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-health-care-re...) and it begins with Chief Justice Roberts announcing that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of congressional power under the commerce clause of the constitution. Legal analysis had largely turned on this point, and it was widely assumed that if the court failed to justify the law under the commerce clause it would rule against it. But less than two pages later Roberts clearly explains that the mandate is permissible under the federal government's taxing authority.
I timed myself, and it took my one minute and 44 seconds to get to page 4 of the opinion where this is stated. Granted, by that time I already knew what was coming, but certainly informed reporters and legal analysts could have gotten there in, say 5 minutes, or even 10, on a first reading? All the cable newscasts had to do was take those 5 or 10 minutes to read the damn opinion, clearly the most important Supreme Court decision in the last decade, one of the most importatant in the last half century, before announcing to the world something that was not just wrong, but the exact opposite of what was right. This should be more than just a little sidebar, mildly embarrassing. This should be a major humiliation. CNN should fear that viewers will no longer tune in to them to get credible information about important stories, since they can not be trusted to get it right. Nothing should be more important to the people who run CNN than making sure that something like this never, ever happens. But of course in the contemporary climate, being accurate is way down the list of priorities at CNN.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:35 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This should be more than just a little sidebar, mildly embarrassing. This
> should be a major humiliation. CNN should fear that viewers will no longer
> tune in to them to get credible information about important stories, since
> they can not be trusted to get it right. Nothing should be more important to
> the people who run CNN than making sure that something like this never, ever
> happens. But of course in the contemporary climate, being accurate is way
> down the list of priorities at CNN.
It happened in the middle of the morning and it was quickly corrected.
I'm not in any way trying to justify what CNN did, but in the long
term it is going to be forgotten.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Tom Wolper <twol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:35 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This should be more than just a little sidebar, mildly embarrassing. This
> > should be a major humiliation. CNN should fear that viewers will no
> longer
> > tune in to them to get credible information about important stories,
> since
> > they can not be trusted to get it right. Nothing should be more
> important to
> > the people who run CNN than making sure that something like this never,
> ever
> > happens. But of course in the contemporary climate, being accurate is way
> > down the list of priorities at CNN.
> It happened in the middle of the morning and it was quickly corrected.
> I'm not in any way trying to justify what CNN did, but in the long
> term it is going to be forgotten.
It won't be forgotten in the long term, it will be forgotten immediately.
That is the problem.
It is not that any real harm was done (though there are reports that for a
few minutes the White House actually believed the SCOTUS had ruled against
them). It's what it tells us about how carelessly the newscasts do their
business on a regular basis.
Let's not forget that of the three cable news networks, MSNBC was the
only one that got it right the first time by giving Pete Williams the
necessary time to digest just what was in the ruling. And when he was
asked who voted what, he was honest enough to say he needed more time
to figure that out.
If there's a "winner" in this morning's media coverage, it's MSNBC.
On Jun 28, 5:10 pm, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Tom Wolper <twol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:35 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This should be more than just a little sidebar, mildly embarrassing. This
> > > should be a major humiliation. CNN should fear that viewers will no
> > longer
> > > tune in to them to get credible information about important stories,
> > since
> > > they can not be trusted to get it right. Nothing should be more
> > important to
> > > the people who run CNN than making sure that something like this never,
> > ever
> > > happens. But of course in the contemporary climate, being accurate is way
> > > down the list of priorities at CNN.
> > It happened in the middle of the morning and it was quickly corrected.
> > I'm not in any way trying to justify what CNN did, but in the long
> > term it is going to be forgotten.
> It won't be forgotten in the long term, it will be forgotten immediately.
> That is the problem.
> It is not that any real harm was done (though there are reports that for a
> few minutes the White House actually believed the SCOTUS had ruled against
> them). It's what it tells us about how carelessly the newscasts do their
> business on a regular basis.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:10 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It happened in the middle of the morning and it was quickly corrected.
>> I'm not in any way trying to justify what CNN did, but in the long
>> term it is going to be forgotten.
> It won't be forgotten in the long term, it will be forgotten immediately.
> That is the problem.
I don't really like the story I'm linking to because it contains three
blind quotes, but it does serve to underscore the fact this isn't
going to get forgotten
If I were going to tie this to Sorkin's "Newsroom" (as the subject of
the thread does), my criticism of the pilot is that the fictional
newsroom appears to be a place bloated with office workers. I forget
how long ago this series was first announced and what, if any,
research was done, but that isn't how newsrooms are anymore. LA
stations are operating at between 40 to zero percent of what they were
a decade ago (two stations combined news divisions and one dropped the
news altogether). This is the number two market in the country and
here many reporters have to do his/her own camera work, sound work,
and editing -- you normally see that only in the smallest markets.
KNBC finally got its own helicopter again recently (coincidence they
are covering more high speed pursuits lately?).
In short, if the news agencies cared about accuracy, they would still
have bloated staffs of seasoned veterans. The assignment desk position
used to be among the most taxing in the industry, but now that
fact-checking, copy-editing, and accountability are out the window,
any kids straight out of college can do the job. I know of one LA
station where the assignment desk dishes out assignments for the day
during the morning news, then the assignment editor leaves. If there
is breaking news during the day, there is nobody in the building to
pull reporters off of other stories.
CNN isn't a newsgathering organization. It is a newsreading
organization. And the people CNN paid to read the Supreme Court ruling
didn't know what they were doing. And Jeffrey Toobin has no business
anywhere near a newsroom. And Wolf Blitzer is a waffle. Yeah, I said
it, he is a waffle.
-- Kevin M. (RPCV)
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Kevin M. <drunkbastar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:10 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It won't be forgotten in the long term, it will be forgotten immediately.
> > That is the problem.
> I don't really like the story I'm linking to because it contains three
> blind quotes, but it does serve to underscore the fact this isn't
> going to get forgotten
> If I were going to tie this to Sorkin's "Newsroom" (as the subject of
> the thread does), my criticism of the pilot is that the fictional
> newsroom appears to be a place bloated with office workers. (SNIP)
Well, I am sure it will be remembered in the CNN newroom, but I doubt it
will be remembered in the CNN corporate offices, or really by most of the
people deciding where to get their news.
I do like this quote from your piece: “Fucking humiliating,” said one CNN
veteran. “We had a chance to cover it right. And some people in here don’t
get what a big deal getting it wrong is. Morons.”
That is exactly right.
But at least the reporter who gave us the misinformation is one of the 50
most beautiful people; that is what really matters.
If Sorkin does deal with it, I'm sure it'll be two years from now, when he's had plenty of time to armchair quarterback and tell us what he would have done in real time with two years of hindsight.
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:35:06 AM UTC-7, PGage wrote:
> I was not watching CNN this morning, but according to the HuffPost: > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/cnn-supreme-court-health-car... they and Fox News jumped to the wrong conclusion when the decision was > first released this morning, announcing that the Affordable Care Law had > basically been overturned"
> "Wow, that's a dramatic moment," Wolf Blitzer said, as a chyron saying > "SUPREME CT. KILLS INDIVIDUAL MANDATE" flashed on the screen. "The Justices > have just gutted, Wolf, the centerpiece provision of the health care law," > John King said, adding that it was a "direct blow to President Obama."
> A few minutes later they had to reverse and correct themselves: Later, > Boulduan returned to correct the initial report: "'It's a huge, huge > victory for President Obama' Blitzer said."
> Apparently Fox News went through a very similar sequence.
> CNN justified the mistake by saying: "the Court had released a "very > confusing large opinion"; they said that the decision was "thick" and > "legally dense," scanning the papers on-air."
> This is basically bullshit. I do understand why CNN initially thought the > opinion was going against Obamacare. I have read the first ten pages of the > opinion (the full opinion is 193 pages long, you can read it too at > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-health-care-re...) > and it begins with Chief Justice Roberts announcing that the individual > mandate is not a valid exercise of congressional power under the commerce > clause of the constitution. Legal analysis had largely turned on this > point, and it was widely assumed that if the court failed to justify the > law under the commerce clause it would rule against it. But less than two > pages later Roberts clearly explains that the mandate is permissible under > the federal government's taxing authority.
> I timed myself, and it took my one minute and 44 seconds to get to page 4 > of the opinion where this is stated. Granted, by that time I already knew > what was coming, but certainly informed reporters and legal analysts could > have gotten there in, say 5 minutes, or even 10, on a first reading? All > the cable newscasts had to do was take those 5 or 10 minutes to read the > damn opinion, clearly the most important Supreme Court decision in the last > decade, one of the most importatant in the last half century, before > announcing to the world something that was not just wrong, but the exact > opposite of what was right.
> This should be more than just a little sidebar, mildly embarrassing. This > should be a major humiliation. CNN should fear that viewers will no longer > tune in to them to get credible information about important stories, since > they can not be trusted to get it right. Nothing should be more important > to the people who run CNN than making sure that something like this never, > ever happens. But of course in the contemporary climate, being accurate is > way down the list of priorities at CNN.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Dave Sikula <dsik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If Sorkin does deal with it, I'm sure it'll be two years from now, when
> he's had plenty of time to armchair quarterback and tell us what he would
> have done in real time with two years of hindsight.
Wow - Aaron Sorkin must have really done something to piss you off to make
you think he is so stupid it would take him two years to figure out that if
he were covering the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare he would have read at
least the first 4 pages of the decision before announcing it had been found
unconstitutional on television.
Dave, sir, stop and think for a moment about why he set the series two
years in the past. Yes, everybody's vision is better in hindsight, but
what he did was take a very real incident in history and set a series
during that moment to demonstrate how, if we had an actual newsroom
looking into such incidents as opposed to the talking head newsreaders
who just read wire copy and press releases into a camera, we might
have actually been a step or two ahead of the disaster. The fact most
of the networks got the Supreme decision wrong, and in turn the White
House allegedly also thought they lost the battle for a few minutes,
proves how flawed our sources of news are. You verify something three
times before reporting it, and you don't allow anybody on the air
"Toobin" who will bloviate about something he knows nothing about.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Dave Sikula <dsik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If Sorkin does deal with it, I'm sure it'll be two years from now, when
>> he's had plenty of time to armchair quarterback and tell us what he would
>> have done in real time with two years of hindsight.
> Wow - Aaron Sorkin must have really done something to piss you off to make
> you think he is so stupid it would take him two years to figure out that if
> he were covering the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare he would have read at
> least the first 4 pages of the decision before announcing it had been found
> unconstitutional on television.
> --
> TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Just to clarify within the thread what happened based on the article
and other readings.:
- Generally SCOTUS decisions are simply announced in the courtroom,
and the opinions are then released. In select situations (usually
big-time cases such as this), the justices may decide to read their
opinion in court. If that's the case, the opinion is not released
until after it is fully read.
- There was a CNN producer, Bill Mears, sitting in the courtroom.
- Chief Justice John Roberts began reading the majority opinion out
loud (this was likely not a surprise to anyone). At this point, there
was no written copy of the opinion available.
- When Roberts read that the commerce clause wasn't covering this,
Mears determined *on his own* that the decision would be to overturn.
- Mears communicated to Kate Bolden (the talent outside) that the
decision was to overturn.
- What Mears didn't realize was that Roberts would say a couple
paragraphs later that there was a *different* rule that would allow
the law to be upheld.
- (JOE'S CONJECTURE) Mears probably went back into the room, realized
that he was wrong, then went back out to Bolden to tell her it was, in
fact, upheld.
I agree that CNN completely cocked this up. But the direct blame lies
very squarely on Bill Mears jumping the gun, with plenty of indirect
blame coming from the decision to put him in the courtroom instead of
someone with a strong legal background, even if that meant the
analysis would be delayed.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:35 AM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was not watching CNN this morning, but according to the HuffPost:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/cnn-supreme-court-health-car... > both they and Fox News jumped to the wrong conclusion when the decision was
> first released this morning, announcing that the Affordable Care Law had
> basically been overturned"
> "Wow, that's a dramatic moment," Wolf Blitzer said, as a chyron saying
> "SUPREME CT. KILLS INDIVIDUAL MANDATE" flashed on the screen. "The Justices
> have just gutted, Wolf, the centerpiece provision of the health care law,"
> John King said, adding that it was a "direct blow to President Obama."
> A few minutes later they had to reverse and correct themselves: Later,
> Boulduan returned to correct the initial report: "'It's a huge, huge victory
> for President Obama' Blitzer said."
> Apparently Fox News went through a very similar sequence.
> CNN justified the mistake by saying: "the Court had released a "very
> confusing large opinion"; they said that the decision was "thick" and
> "legally dense," scanning the papers on-air."
> This is basically bullshit. I do understand why CNN initially thought the
> opinion was going against Obamacare. I have read the first ten pages of the
> opinion (the full opinion is 193 pages long, you can read it too at
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-health-care-re...)
> and it begins with Chief Justice Roberts announcing that the individual
> mandate is not a valid exercise of congressional power under the commerce
> clause of the constitution. Legal analysis had largely turned on this point,
> and it was widely assumed that if the court failed to justify the law under
> the commerce clause it would rule against it. But less than two pages later
> Roberts clearly explains that the mandate is permissible under the federal
> government's taxing authority.
> I timed myself, and it took my one minute and 44 seconds to get to page 4 of
> the opinion where this is stated. Granted, by that time I already knew what
> was coming, but certainly informed reporters and legal analysts could have
> gotten there in, say 5 minutes, or even 10, on a first reading? All the
> cable newscasts had to do was take those 5 or 10 minutes to read the damn
> opinion, clearly the most important Supreme Court decision in the last
> decade, one of the most importatant in the last half century, before
> announcing to the world something that was not just wrong, but the exact
> opposite of what was right.
> This should be more than just a little sidebar, mildly embarrassing. This
> should be a major humiliation. CNN should fear that viewers will no longer
> tune in to them to get credible information about important stories, since
> they can not be trusted to get it right. Nothing should be more important to
> the people who run CNN than making sure that something like this never, ever
> happens. But of course in the contemporary climate, being accurate is way
> down the list of priorities at CNN.
> --
> TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Joe Hass <hassgoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to clarify within the thread what happened based on the article
> and other readings.:
> (SNIP) - There was a CNN producer, Bill Mears, sitting in the courtroom.
> - Chief Justice John Roberts began reading the majority opinion out
> loud (this was likely not a surprise to anyone). At this point, there
> was no written copy of the opinion available.
> - When Roberts read that the commerce clause wasn't covering this,
> Mears determined *on his own* that the decision would be to overturn.
> - Mears communicated to Kate Bolden (the talent outside) that the
> decision was to overturn.
> - What Mears didn't realize was that Roberts would say a couple
> paragraphs later that there was a *different* rule that would allow
> the law to be upheld. (SNIP)
> I agree that CNN completely cocked this up. But the direct blame lies
> very squarely on Bill Mears jumping the gun, with plenty of indirect
> blame coming from the decision to put him in the courtroom instead of
> someone with a strong legal background, even if that meant the
> analysis would be delayed.
All this is my understanding as well - but it does not change anything.
Instead of waiting to read to page 4, Mears only had to wait to listen to
the Chief Justice read to page 4, which seems even easier.
The New York Times was only too happy to explain that they avoided making
the same mistake because they spent a week identifying all of the
permutations of the possible decision, and emphasized to everyone covering
the story the importance of waiting to make sure they got it right. The NYT
guy in the courtroom did not flash the wrong conclusion because he was well
aware that the White House had made two arguments for the law, and the
commerce clause was only one. So their guy waited 1.5 minutes to hear what
the opinion had to say about the other argument
If we want to assume that the pretty face actually reporting things on
camera is of course not responsible for anything she says (which is of
course true, but another problem), we can still hold the entire CNN
decision-making team responsible for not being adequately prepared prior to
the event (and, as Stewart pointed out so well last night, CNN has been
pimping this story for a couple of weeks, so there really is no excuse for
them not getting their shit together). I also hold Blitzer responsible.
*"The show's set in the recent past because I didn't want to make up fake news*. I wanted to do "His Girl Friday" set against the backdrop of actual news events. I knew when the first season started and when it ended and it was a year ago this month that the staff and I began wallpapering the writers room with every single news event from that 18 month period."
On Friday, June 29, 2012 2:56:14 PM UTC-4, Kevin M. (RPCV) wrote:
> Dave, sir, stop and think for a moment about why he set the series two > years in the past. Yes, everybody's vision is better in hindsight, but > what he did was take a very real incident in history and set a series > during that moment to demonstrate how, if we had an actual newsroom > looking into such incidents as opposed to the talking head newsreaders > who just read wire copy and press releases into a camera, we might > have actually been a step or two ahead of the disaster. The fact most > of the networks got the Supreme decision wrong, and in turn the White > House allegedly also thought they lost the battle for a few minutes, > proves how flawed our sources of news are. You verify something three > times before reporting it, and you don't allow anybody on the air > "Toobin" who will bloviate about something he knows nothing about.
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Dave Sikula <dsik...@yahoo.com> > wrote:
> >> If Sorkin does deal with it, I'm sure it'll be two years from now, when > >> he's had plenty of time to armchair quarterback and tell us what he > would > >> have done in real time with two years of hindsight.
> > Wow - Aaron Sorkin must have really done something to piss you off to > make > > you think he is so stupid it would take him two years to figure out that > if > > he were covering the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare he would have read at > > least the first 4 pages of the decision before announcing it had been > found > > unconstitutional on television.
> > -- > > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > > To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > tvornottv-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
The good folks at SCOTUSblog have a 7500-word epic on how CNN and Fox
cocked it up, complete with far more information than you'd ever want
to know. I'm only up to the start of the reading of the opinion, and
I've already learned how my thought of how this worked was way off
(they started handing out the printed decision as soon as Justice
Roberts started to read it).
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 4:18 PM, M-D November <mdnovem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From the horse's mouth:
> "The show's set in the recent past because I didn't want to make up fake
> news. I wanted to do "His Girl Friday" set against the backdrop of actual
> news events. I knew when the first season started and when it ended and it
> was a year ago this month that the staff and I began wallpapering the
> writers room with every single news event from that 18 month period."
> On Friday, June 29, 2012 2:56:14 PM UTC-4, Kevin M. (RPCV) wrote:
>> Dave, sir, stop and think for a moment about why he set the series two
>> years in the past. Yes, everybody's vision is better in hindsight, but
>> what he did was take a very real incident in history and set a series
>> during that moment to demonstrate how, if we had an actual newsroom
>> looking into such incidents as opposed to the talking head newsreaders
>> who just read wire copy and press releases into a camera, we might
>> have actually been a step or two ahead of the disaster. The fact most
>> of the networks got the Supreme decision wrong, and in turn the White
>> House allegedly also thought they lost the battle for a few minutes,
>> proves how flawed our sources of news are. You verify something three
>> times before reporting it, and you don't allow anybody on the air
>> "Toobin" who will bloviate about something he knows nothing about.
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Dave Sikula <dsik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> If Sorkin does deal with it, I'm sure it'll be two years from now, when
>> >> he's had plenty of time to armchair quarterback and tell us what he
>> >> would
>> >> have done in real time with two years of hindsight.
>> > Wow - Aaron Sorkin must have really done something to piss you off to
>> > make
>> > you think he is so stupid it would take him two years to figure out that
>> > if
>> > he were covering the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare he would have read at
>> > least the first 4 pages of the decision before announcing it had been
>> > found
>> > unconstitutional on television.
>> > --
>> > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> > Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
>> > To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > tvornottv-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
>> --
>> Kevin M. (RPCV)
> --
> TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
And having finished reading it, I cannot stress enough: if you have
*any* interest in how TV news works, read this from top to bottom. If
this isn't the best piece of journalism about journalism this year,
whatever beats it is gonna have a helluva bar to clear.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Joe Hass <hassgoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The good folks at SCOTUSblog have a 7500-word epic on how CNN and Fox
> cocked it up, complete with far more information than you'd ever want
> to know. I'm only up to the start of the reading of the opinion, and
> I've already learned how my thought of how this worked was way off
> (they started handing out the printed decision as soon as Justice
> Roberts started to read it).
Joe Hass <hassgoc...@gmail.com> wrote: >And having finished reading it, I cannot stress enough: if you have >*any* interest in how TV news works, read this from top to bottom. If >this isn't the best piece of journalism about journalism this year, >whatever beats it is gonna have a helluva bar to clear.
>On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Joe Hass <hassgoc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The good folks at SCOTUSblog have a 7500-word epic on how CNN and Fox >> cocked it up, complete with far more information than you'd ever want >> to know. I'm only up to the start of the reading of the opinion, and >> I've already learned how my thought of how this worked was way off >> (they started handing out the printed decision as soon as Justice >> Roberts started to read it).
>-- >TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >Groups "TV or Not TV" group. >To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >tvornottv-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >For more options, visit this group at >http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:39 PM, David Bruggeman <bru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not to mention that SCOTUSBlog has no SC press credential. That's just old media thinking.
Old media seems to have the pull to keep any possible competitors from
getting credentials.
While I won't dispute the notion that traditional media tries to keep SCOTUSBlog out, it struck me as plausible that the Court doesn't know what to do with bloggers. They still don't have cameras (though I'm agnostic as to whether that's a good idea or not). And the lack of preparation for their website also suggests they don't get it or don't want to get it.
David
________________________________ From: Tom Wolper <twol...@gmail.com> To: tvornottv@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2012 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] SCOTUS Obamacare Ruling Provides Sorkin More Material
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:39 PM, David Bruggeman <bru...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Not to mention that SCOTUSBlog has no SC press credential. That's just old media thinking.
Old media seems to have the pull to keep any possible competitors from getting credentials.
-- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 3:11 PM, David Bruggeman <bru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> While I won't dispute the notion that traditional media tries to keep
> SCOTUSBlog out, it struck me as plausible that the Court doesn't know what
> to do with bloggers. They still don't have cameras (though I'm agnostic as
> to whether that's a good idea or not). And the lack of preparation for
> their website also suggests they don't get it or don't want to get it.
I used to resent the Supreme Court's denial of cameras and -- well --
modern technology, but the more I see how such things have clouded and
clogged the other branches of government, the more I side with the
Supreme Court on this. I also don't think it is the responsibility of
the Supreme Court to make its rulings digestible to John Q. Public.
They shouldn't need to issue a watered down/dumbed down press release
in tandem with a weighty legal decision. It should be the job of legal
analysts in the media to relay important information to the public (I
say again that Jeffrey Toobin is a TV lawyer, NOT a legal analyst),
and/or the public to educate themselves so they can read a court
decision. Supreme Court Justices are judges, not spokespeople or
marketing people or teachers. My only real complaint about the Court
is that there is no earthly reason why it can't be year-round. A lot
of cases get kicked to the curb because there isn't time for them in
the court calendar. There is no reason for them to take lengthy
breaks.
-- Kevin M. (RPCV)
The preparations in this question were about anticipating the website demand for the opinion. I would fully expect the Court to make things worse with a press release, not better.
David
________________________________ From: Kevin M. <drunkbastar...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] SCOTUS Obamacare Ruling Provides Sorkin More Material I used to resent the Supreme Court's denial of cameras and -- well -- modern technology, but the more I see how such things have clouded and clogged the other branches of government, the more I side with the Supreme Court on this. I also don't think it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to make its rulings digestible to John Q. Public. They shouldn't need to issue a watered down/dumbed down press release in tandem with a weighty legal decision.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 3:42 PM, David Bruggeman <bru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The preparations in this question were about anticipating the website demand
> for the opinion. I would fully expect the Court to make things worse with a
> press release, not better.
I can picture Scalia's press release, though:
"We the people of the United States of Bite Me do hereby decree that
all you morons need to quit thinking you know anything about the law
because you used to watch Boston Legal or Ally McBeal. We have made a
ruling and we don't expect you to understand it, so instead we're
giving you a photograph of a shiny object to gawk at, because we know
you all enjoy shiny things. Now don't forget to vote because we all
know government will get better as long as the uneducated amongst us
elects our leaders."
