that is fantastic.

LOL. Even Wolfe knew enough to put the "if" qualifier in his comment.

Here's the homepage:

I think this must be a case of the administration "leaking" the details and then pulling a "PSYCHE!"

That's some nice journalism there, Lou.

JonnyG: I think this must be a case of the administration "leaking" the details and then pulling a "PSYCHE!"

It's actually a case of a person furiously speed-reading the decision to get it on the air as quickly as possible and misinterpreting part of it.

Shostie: JonnyG: I think this must be a case of the administration "leaking" the details and then pulling a "PSYCHE!"

It's actually a case of a person furiously speed-reading the decision to get it on the air as quickly as possible and misinterpreting part of it.

Does this mean youre looking for a new job now?

Shostie: JonnyG: I think this must be a case of the administration "leaking" the details and then pulling a "PSYCHE!"

It's actually a case of a person furiously speed-reading the decision to get it on the air as quickly as possible and misinterpreting part of it.

No, just failing to continue to read it. They got the part about the commerce clause right, and well, stopped reading.

ThatGuyGreg: Shostie: JonnyG: I think this must be a case of the administration "leaking" the details and then pulling a "PSYCHE!"

It's actually a case of a person furiously speed-reading the decision to get it on the air as quickly as possible and misinterpreting part of it.

No, just failing to continue to read it. They got the part about the commerce clause right, and well, stopped reading.

Either way, they jumped the gun, which is what I was getting at.

quickdraw: Does this mean youre looking for a new job now?

I've managed to f*ck up pretty badly at my job before, but not quite to that scale.

With this kind of journalistic prowess, I just can't understand how CNN's ratings are tanking.

Shostie: It's actually a case of a person furiously speed-reading the decision to get it on the air as quickly as possible and misinterpreting part of it.

I think they probably had several graphics ready to go, and they just clicked the wrong button.

egg on your facepalm, cnn?

Maybe we temporarily caught a broadcast from an alternate universe (where the Mandate Was Struck Down).

I knew that the individual mandate was in Sacramento situational all along.

Diogenes: LOL. Even Wolfe knew enough to put the "if" qualifier in his comment.

My thoughts exactly. "That's a dramatic moment IF IN FACT the SC has ruled the ind. mandate is IN FACT unconstitutional."

It's like they don't believe their own reporting.... WTF is wrong with CNN?

TPM has a great vid of CNN and Fox "News" getting it wrong...

CNN, Fox News Bungle Supreme Court Coverage

Scroll down for the video.

nice that she right away said it was the words of producer soandso.......

that guy's looking at the want ads right now......lol

And where's the video of Chief Justice Roberts getting the ruling wrong!?

_{^{just kidding}}

What she initially reported wasn't wrong: She reported that Court ruled that "the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause." A majority of the justices of the court (5) did in fact rule that. However, her next statement--though somewhat equivocal and not stated as undeniable fact--was ultimately not correct: "So it appears as if the justices have struck down the individual mandate as unconstitutional." Roberts ruled that, though he (along with the other four right-wingers) thought it was not a valid exercise of Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause, he thought it could be viewed as a tax and valid under Congress' constitutional authority to law and collect taxes.

This is confusing stuff, and the opinion itself (link goes to PDF version) is 193 pages and not easily digestable, so it was tough to get a handle on a minute or two after it was released. I can't really fault her too much for drawing a likely but ultimately incorrect conclusion from the accurate statement that the majority of the justices had ruled (incorrectly and in a manner inconsistent prior cases, in my view) that the individual mandate wasn't authorized by the Commerce Clause.

False reporting after something major? Well, too much of a hassle to change it now, let's just run with what the media said, after all, we have precedent for such a situation in the US

Cyberluddite: What she initially reported wasn't wrong: She reported that Court ruled that "the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause." A majority of the justices of the court (5) did in fact rule that. However, her next statement--though somewhat equivocal and not stated as undeniable fact--was ultimately not correct: "So it appears as if the justices have struck down the individual mandate as unconstitutional." Roberts ruled that, though he (along with the other four right-wingers) thought it was not a valid exercise of Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause, he thought it could be viewed as a tax and valid under Congress' constitutional authority to law and collect taxes.

This is confusing stuff, and the opinion itself (link goes to PDF version) is 193 pages and not easily digestable, so it was tough to get a handle on a minute or two after it was released. I can't really fault her too much for drawing a likely but ultimately incorrect conclusion from the accurate statement that the majority of the justices had ruled (incorrectly and in a manner inconsistent prior cases, in my view) that the individual mandate wasn't authorized by the Commerce Clause.

I wonder if SCOTUS just did it to fark with the reporters. "We do not rule that the law is not unconstitutional based on the arguments that were not presented at the hearing, but also do not disagree that it is not unconstitutional because we think it falls under a category that is not the commerce clause"

/please don't check that for accuracy

We're going to have to leave this there.

And then there is this. Her little orgasim was for naught. Link

I went to the doctor today for a checkup. Nice, because I have been out of work for awhile and I don't have to worry about such stuff. Start work next week though, so looking forward to paying those taxes!

/Canadian

JonnyG: I think this must be a case of the administration "leaking" the details and then pulling a "PSYCHE!"

In related news, there are people who are provably dumber than TV reporters yet somehow able to survive.

Altitude5280
And then there is this. Her little orgasim was for naught. Link

Jebus... you'd think the courts just gave a reaming death sentence to the person that raped and murdered everyone in her family or something.

Changes are a-comin' but were people REALLY that obsessed with this? They're acting as though, if it passed, then MiBs were going to enter their homes, kill their pets, eat their food, impregnate their daughters, ruin their credit, cut off their cable service, kick them in the scrode and leave.

People: GET. A. LIFE. You take the day off work just to hang around the Supreme Court and cheer if they swing your way? It must be nice to have that kind of spare time on your hands...

Corporate News Network as well as most of the corporate owned "new" networks in the Land of the Free get it wrong on a daily basis.

the only reason it was caught this time is because it was so obvious, so glaring. the only real news is online and a few networks who at least attempt to not spread big business propaganda.

eraser8: With this kind of journalistic prowess, I just can't understand how CNN's ratings are tanking.


CNN is doing their best to upstage the Propaganda Mecca of the United States: FOX News.