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.
David ________________________________ From: PGage <[email protected]> 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-care-individual-mandate_n_1633950.html 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-reform-ruling_n_1605393.html) 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
