PLANK JULY 9, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Can we talk about the nonsense of caring about which news outlet first reports a big piece of news? I’m not talking about a genuine scoop—a report that wouldn’t have otherwise come to light—but about news that we’re all eventually going to find out anyway. Who Mitt Romney selects to be his running-mate, for instance, or whether the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate.
I know I’m often out-of-the-loop when it comes to journalism norms and conventions, but this one honestly confounds me. Has any publication ever received a Pulitzer for being the first to report a major announcement? Is there some secret reward at stake—free cookies for a year? A trip to Hawaii? Do colleagues buy you a drink to congratulate you on beating the other networks by ten seconds?
Because if this is just about bragging rights, it needs to stop. Now. And not just because it can lead to some outlets rushing to report incorrect information, as CNN and FOX did with the recent Supreme Court decision on health care reform. But because the race to be first is no longer just a feature of news coverage but often the main factor driving it.
That was one of depressing takeaways from Tommy Goldstein’s weekend post on how CNN and FOX got the Supreme Court’s healthcare decision wrong and so many other outlets got it right. Goldstein is best known as an expert on all things related to the Supreme Court (he’s also founder of SCOTUSblog and subject of a 2006 TNR profile by Noam Scheiber). But it turns out he’s also a pretty damn good media critic as well.
As Goldstein tells the story, the CNN producer at the Supreme Court when the decision was handed out quickly flipped through the opinion and told colleagues that the court had struck down the individual mandate after he got to the part that rejected the Administration’s Commerce Clause argument. But within seconds—after he scanned further down the page and saw the tax defense—he realized the error and tried to stop them from reporting his initial take, saying, “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.
Even after CNN realized that its breaking report might have been wrong, the way Wolf Blitzer continued to cover the decision was nothing short of absurd. After using some cautionary language to let viewers know that the network needed to confirm the court’s decision, Wolf Blitzer observed, “It’s getting a little more complicated.” His remark, of course, referred to the network’s own coverage. The court’s decision couldn’t have gotten more complicated because it was final, set down on paper.
Blitzer’s unhelpful meta-commentary was just one example of the vamping that took place on tv and radio as reporters rushed to read the opinion and figure out what it meant. I was driving back from the airport that morning and listened as The Diane Rehm show broke off from another segment to cover the decision. The show’s producers had assembled a fantastic panel, including TNR’s Jeffrey Rosen, but for at least ten minutes, they engaged in a back-and-forth that frustrated listeners, panelists and host alike. Rehm kept pressing the panelists to analyze the decision and tell her what it said, but the panelists had not yet seen, much less digested, the majority opinion.
When I arrived home, I turned on the tv to find that even though the networks now knew that the mandate had been upheld, discussion of the court’s decision had been dictated by the vamping that took place in the first few minutes. Instead of talking about what the decision would actually mean in terms of the implementation of health-care reform, anchors asked their guests about the political implications—was this good or bad for Obama? What did it mean that Chief Justice Roberts had sided with the majority? Would this help Democrats take back the House in November?
Imagine if instead these programs had said, We’re going to take five—better yet, ten—and then come back to you having looked at the decision and feeling fairly confident what we can tell you about it. You’ll have to imagine that scenario, because it will never happen. In the meantime, I suppose I won’t be invited to that secret awards ceremony at which the breakers of news receive their trophies. It’s just as well. I can’t even remember who landed the scoop that Herman Cain was ending his campaign.
10 comments
This sounds like par-for-the-course for Blitzer and CNN, anyway. And I doubt the vamping had anything to do with news anchors not talking about Obamacare itself, because that kind of discussion requires facts and critical thinking. Spouting political commentary is far simpler and more rewarding in terms of viewership. Besdies, there's already a channel for people who want to actually learn something, it's called the History Channel.
- GSpinks
July 9, 2012 at 12:38pm
For journalists, Amy Sullivan for instance, the term reflection means the act of reflecting, or careful consideration; but for those in the news business, reflection is what they see when they look in the mirror.
- rayward
July 9, 2012 at 12:42pm
Ah, Amy, I've been enjoying your pieces in TNR. Though they tend to be brief, they tend to be on-target. Until now, anyway. Apparently you ignored the speculative media frenzy for the last three weeks, every Friday opining that the following Monday would be THE Decision, and speculating on what THE Decision would be. The Thursday failure of CNN and Fox-News was at least limited in time -- Fox-News got corrected within minutes, and CNN within 15 minutes. I completely agree with you, it Would Be Nice if our media didn't foam at the mouth quite so often. But that's the reality of the impact of Fox-News -- their propaganda spin comes out so fast and furious that the MSM looks ridiculous when they try to keep up. But plaintive appeals that "it shouldn't be this way" aren't going to help.
- AllanL5
July 9, 2012 at 1:17pm
If futility were a reaon not to complain Allan, this site would be anemic indeed. I think it is perfectly valid to observe the clownish behavior of so-called broadcast journalists, even if nothing can be done to prevent that clownish behavior. I was watching MSNBC when the decision was issued. MSNBC was patting itself on the back because its legal correspondent, Pete Williams, sort of got it right when he said, literally breathlessly, and moronically, that the Court had struck down the mandate but had upheld the penalty. Tom Goldstein later explained to Williams that the mandate is what it is -- a requirement that most individuals either obtain insurance or pay a penalty with their tax returns -- and that the Court didn't strike down one part of the mandate while upholding another. It had merely held that the mandate could not be upheld under the Commerce Clause but could be upheld , in its entirety, under the taxing power. Williams looked bewildered and characterized Goldstein's clarification as "subtle." Of course, that lack of understanding by Williams probably pre-dated the issuance of the Court's opinion. Dhurtado
- NR143296
July 9, 2012 at 4:29pm
"Reason" not to complain ...
- NR143296
July 9, 2012 at 4:53pm
It could be claimed that the need to be the first to declare a winner in the Bush-Gore 2000 election erroneously gave the edge to Bush, which ultimately led to one of his legal claims that he was being "denied" his "right" to be acknowledged as the winner. Regardless of which side one was on, no one can deny the decision on that election changed the course of at least the next decade of American history.
- dianakunkel
July 10, 2012 at 12:13am
GSpinks, Good comment, up to the reference to the History Channel. It's all reality shows now. Monday night's programming features Pawn Stars, American Pickers, and Shark Wranglers. The channel's slogan is History Made Every Day. Well, everything that happens in the universe is history in the making. They're right about that. I didn't realize the History Channel had been trashed until recently myself. I did know that A & E had gone all-reality years ago. Monday evening's programs on A & E include Gene Simmons Family Jewels and Duck Dynasty, where self-proclaimed rednecks have fishin' and huntin' and gator-grabbin' contests, in between gettin' rich from the duck calls that the family invented. Maybe someday the major news networks will fight each other for the scoop on a Gene Simmons jewel-grabbin' contest. Or maybe not.
- magboy47.
July 10, 2012 at 1:06am
Allan5 maybe it's me but aren't you mixing up a couple of things. I can't see blaming Fox for the race to be first. That's the general nature of the hyper competitive 24/7 cable news. Fox is no more guilty here than any other cable news outlet. What I see you mixing up is the race to be first, one thing, and the instant ideological spinning, another thing. But even on the latter, I don't find Fox either the cause or the major offender. MSNBC is at least just as bad, if not worse in the instant and relentless spin department. And one other thing: there is something where MSNBC cleans Fox's clock: self righteous smugness. I find it revolting there. I can watch a little Fox. I can't watch 5 minutes of MSNBC.
- basman
July 10, 2012 at 11:12pm
I seldom watch television, though I was almost forced to while in the hospital. If Magboy's favorite shows have fallen and declined, perhaps we need a TNR channel. Though what it would contain besides talking heads, I am not sure. Perhaps it could steal some stuff from YouTube? Or am I getting my 21st Centure media memes all mixed up?
- skahn
July 11, 2012 at 9:25pm
Interesting basman. Each of MSNBC and FOX have a variety of hosts/commentators, and it probably is a fools errand to try to generalize. But if you don't think Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are self-righteous, arrogant and hostile, then your perceptions are different than mine. By the same token, I think Ed Schultz and Lawrence O'Donnell can be very obnoxious, though they don't bother me as much because, admittedly, their political/ideological views are more often aligned with mine. On the other side of the coin, I like FOX's Chris Wallace and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Have you checked out MSNBC's Up with Chris Hayes on Saturday and Sunday mornings? He is of a progressive orientation, of course, but he has very substantive discusssions with interesting guests, is very pleasant, and very, very smart. Check it out. Dhurtado
- NR143296
July 12, 2012 at 6:27pm