We’re getting wildly differing assessments

[JollyRoger]

A fascinating look on how CNN and Fox botched the initial reporting on the Supreme Court's health care ruling when much of the rest of the media was getting it right. A long piece, but the entire thing is worth a read. I have extracted out some, but not all of what was going on with Fox, CNN, and Scotusblog. I have left out what was going on at the White House.

The announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision largely upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on Thursday, June 28 precipitated a genuine media drama. Millions tuned in to get the result in real time, and were rewarded with the spectacle of two major news networks reporting the story incorrectly.

CNN’s strategy for covering the decision is to use its established team, comprising a producer (who will get the opinion in G42) and their Supreme Court correspondent, who is waiting on the Courthouse steps. Both are experienced and very well prepared; they have done dozens of interviews about the case. Everything is coordinated through the network’s central control center in Atlanta, permitting the CNN web and social media teams to respond to the decision almost instantaneously.

Fox has beefed up its team by flying in to Washington an experienced producer who previously worked extensively on the network’s Supreme Court coverage. After getting the opinion, the producer will talk to the Fox control room through a conference call. The network’s reporter is out on the steps, bridged into the call over her earpiece.

The Supreme Court will not grant SCOTUSblog a press credential. Lyle Denniston is the only member of our team permitted in the press area; he has a press credential because of his reporting for WBUR in Boston. There are six other members of our team nearby, running nine computers on eight separate Internet connections.

10:06:40 – Here we go

The Court has finished announcing the rulings in the two other remaining cases for the Term. From his center seat, Chief Justice John Roberts begins his oral summary of the Court’s decision in the health care case: “I have the opinion for the Court in . . . .”

Downstairs in G42, the Court’s press room staff opens a huge white box and begins handing out the decision. Every reporter grabs a copy and races out.

Into his conference call, the CNN producer says (correctly) that the Court has held that the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Commerce Clause, and (incorrectly) that it therefore “looks like” the mandate has been struck down. The control room asks whether they can “go with” it, and after a pause, he says yes.

The Fox producer reads the syllabus exactly the same way, and reports that the mandate has been invalidated. Asked to confirm that the mandate has been struck down, he responds: “100%.”

The Bloomberg team finishes its review, having read the Commerce Clause holding and then turned the page to see that the Court accepted the government’s alternative argument that the individual mandate is constitutional under Congress’s tax power. At 10:07:32 – 52 seconds after the Chief Justice began speaking – Bloomberg issues an alert: “OBAMA’S HEALTH-CARE OVERHAUL UPHELD BY U.S.SUPREME COURT.” Bloomberg is first, and it is right.

In the press room, the CNN producer is still on the conference call with the network executives. Within moments of having confirmed that the mandate was invalidated – a couple of seconds, at most – he reads two-thirds of the way down page 3 of the syllabus, “Chief Justice Roberts concluded in Part III-B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.” He immediately recognizes that the Court has turned to an alternative defense of the government, and says into both phones, “Wait, wait.”

But it is already too late. CNN has been carefully orchestrating its transformation into a shockingly efficient news distribution company. They have been planning to saturate every screen in reach with this story as fast as possible, and the producer’s initial go-ahead pulled the trigger. On the air, Wolf Blitzer is sending the coverage to the Courthouse steps. And as planned the reporter is putting her phone down to go on the air, which cuts herself off from the only CNN employee with access to the opinion.

No less important, the network’s web and social media teams are plugged directly into the call through CNN central. They immediately publish unequivocal tweets and a breaking news email saying that the mandate had been invalidated.

Fox is catching up fast. At 10:07:39 – less than a minute after the Chief Justice began speaking – it displays a banner: “Supreme Court finds health care individual mandate unconstitutional.”

To encourage the free flow of information and debate, the Fox producer leaves open the microphones of its guest analysts – Karl Rove and Senior Legal Analyst Andrew Napolitano. Over the air, as the banner goes up, the audience hears, “Oh boy” and an audible “whew….”

Unfortunately, neither network is paying attention to the wire services. In addition to Bloomberg’s early report that the mandate had been upheld, the other three principal wires that cover the Court – Reuters, AP, and Dow Jones – have issued similar alerts in rapid succession.

10:08:30 – SCOTUSblog

On the blog, readers are starting to taunt us via our comments feature (there ultimately will be 13,500 comments over the course of the Live Blog): Guest, “CNN was first, guys…”; Bill, “Fox is already announcing decision”; yolanda, “TV just announced the decision beat you to it”; Guest, “Fox News beats soctusblog….”

It takes me almost one minute exactly to analyze the decision. After about twenty seconds, I am almost certain that the government has won under the tax power. But I worry the opinion itself would have important nuance or qualification. So I read all the first sentences of each paragraph in the critical part of the opinion announcing the tax holding. It is clear that although the Court has rejected the government’s Commerce Clause argument, it has upheld the mandate without qualification.

I turn to Lyle – who has been focusing on the Commerce Clause section of the syllabus on his copy, but also skimmed the tax power discussion in the syllabus – and say, “They win under the taxing power.” Lyle responds, “Yes.” Kevin Russell has gotten a third copy of the opinion from an NBC runner; he agrees. (Lyle then turns immediately to writing the overwhelming majority of our team’s analysis of the case, as he has throughout.)

I dictate to Amy: She repeats it to me to confirm, and publishes the update announcing the decision to our readers.

Opponents of the Act, having seen the television reports, are incredulous and vocal in their responses: Guest, “WHAT???”; Guest, “no reports says its gone!”; Republican, “OMFG”; Tim, “No it isn’t”; Ryan, “BS”; Guest, “apparently you have it wrong”; Sarika, “IT IS NOT SURVIVING AS A TAX!!”; Fred, “It sounds like you guys are spinning this thing. Knock it off and read the law!”

Others have seen enough to know that they need another news source: Guest, “I’m outta here. Turning on TV”; David, “I won’t be back to this site.”

And some indicate we are simply too late, and that Fox and CNN’s earlier reports are res judicata on other journalists: John, “They already struck it down”; Guest, “The mandate is GONE.”

10:09 to 10:11 – Turning the network ships around

Fox has named Megyn Kelly to co-anchor its coverage; having previously served as the network’s Supreme Court correspondent, she knows the Court very well. Kelly is carefully watching a computer, tuned in to the Live Blog.

When the blog reports that the mandate has been upheld, Kelly grabs the attention of anchor Bill Hemmer, who immediately (at 10:08:49) interjects over his still-open mic in an effort to interrupt the Fox reporter on the steps, who is just now saying “that means the mandate is gone.”

Hemmer flags that their reports are coming in the “fog of law” and hands it off to Kelly, who says (at 10:09:02): “Wait, we’re getting conflicting information, we’re getting conflicting information. If you follow SCOTUSblog.com, which covers the high Court, they say that despite what [our reporter] just read, the individual mandate is surviving as a tax.”

10:13 to 10:15 – CNN coming around

CNN is now alone in telling its viewers that the mandate may have been struck down. Blitzer says (at 10:12:09) that “there’s some confusion out there, conflicting reports coming from inside the Supreme Court,” so everyone should “hold off drawing any final conclusions.” Then he says (at 10:12:44) that the mandate may “potentially, potentially” be upheld, and referring to “conflicting information.” Blitzer followed at 10:13:27, saying that those “watching Twitter” will see the same confusion because “we’re getting wildly differing assessments” about the decision.

On our Live Blog, several dozen readers continue to comment that CNN is reporting that the mandate had been invalidated; not one indicates that CNN has any uncertainty until – to its credit – it publishes a formal correction at 10:19. (Fox never does.)

CNN in particular should have told its viewers and readers more quickly about its own serious doubts about its initial reporting. By 10:12 at the latest, CNN was alone in seriously suggesting that the mandate might have been invalidated. The network’s on-air team responsibly hedged throughout the entire process. But by 10:14, they should have been told not to claim that there were wildly conflicting reports about whether the mandate had been invalidated – the only reports on its side were its own, or echoes of its first reports bouncing around Twitter and blogs.

It is difficult to say whether Fox should have instructed its hosts and reporter to hedge initially. The network’s experienced producer with the opinion stated with “100%” certainty that the mandate had been struck down. However, by that time the wire services were reporting exactly the opposite, and so I think the unequivocal tone of Fox’s first reports conveyed more certainty than was reasonable.

The reaction in some quarters at CNN has been apoplectic. But Fox – which like CNN is taking steps to avoid making a similar initial mistake in the future – generally views Thursday morning’s “transparent” broadcasting of information as it developed in real time as exactly how its reporting should function.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/07/were-getting-wildly-differing-assessments/

For those keeping score at home, MSNBC was last among the 3 major cable news networks to report the decision, but the only one of the 3 to get it right the first time.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Definitely a fun read.

In their zeal to be the first to report anything, even by a few seconds, facts go by the wayside. They can always issue a correction later, and not have their reputation destroyed.

How many folks who used to watch CNN or Fox still do after this incident? All of them.

 

[Antilogic]

The most amusing part was the comments section--people who saw the incorrect report on the television "corrected" the legal guys at SCOTUSblog. And then stormed out in frustration because SCOTUSblog was too slow and evidently "wrong".

 

[Formaldehyde]

On our Live Blog, several dozen readers continue to comment that CNN is reporting that the mandate had been invalidated; not one indicates that CNN has any uncertainty until – to its credit – it publishes a formal correction at 10:19. (Fox never does.)

Now there's a real shocker. How could Fox News possibly forget to uphold basic journalistic standards by not officially retracting their clearly incorrect coverage? I'm sure this is an incredibly infrequent occurrence though, being so fair and balanced and all.