Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**Still a Democrat** · 06-30-2012, 07:51 AM

What I'm reading is the decision sounded like it was overturning the mandate in the beginning so CNN/Faux jumped the gun trying to be first. It sounds like sloppy journalism in an effort to beat the other guys.

I don't think it was because of conservative bias. The truth was going to come out, they only looked foolish. The false story didn't benefit the right at all. It just further eroded the credibility of their network of choice.

**Velleity** · 06-30-2012, 08:00 AM

(06-30-2012 07:51 AM)Still a Democrat Wrote: What I'm reading is the decision sounded like it was overturning the mandate in the beginning so CNN/Faux jumped the gun trying to be first. It sounds like sloppy journalism in an effort to beat the other guys.

I don't think it was because of conservative bias. The truth was going to come out, they only looked foolish. The false story didn't benefit the right at all. It just further eroded the credibility of their network of choice.

I think you're correct but since when does the right care about credibility?

**Treestar** · 06-30-2012, 09:03 AM

I was reading the decision - since the Commerce Clause part goes first, it does look like it will be struck down. But then journalists should know by now that an opinion might cover more than one legal issue. Good grief, they are dumb.

**sandnsea** · 06-30-2012, 10:37 AM

I think being in a bubble of right wing propaganda removes the objectivity necessary to evaluate all aspects of a news story. They had legal scenarios outlined and a pre-set idea of how the decision would play out. Exuberance at beating up the President probably played into it as well. Sloppy, absolutely. But I think there was an also an element of group think that contributed to an absence of objectivity that is essential to journalistic integrity. Nobody is going to point it out though, so they move along, unharmed.

**OptimistesMaddie** · 06-30-2012, 12:01 PM

enforced the truth that they are no more than Carnival barkers making billions of dollars.

They proved they are not reliable when it comes to facts and data.

They proved that they listened to the first couple of sentences and then ran out to try to tell the world.....(they were wrong).

They have proved there is a reason to turn them off for news they only have one use and that is poor entertainment.

***azmouse*** · 06-30-2012, 04:03 PM

Hey it worked for Fox before. Remember how they called the 2000 race for Bush and all the other networks jumped on board? I guess they were so desperate to have the ACA fail, they thought they'd try it again and see if the SC would change its mind and go along with Fox reporting. Just kidding... but only slightly. Wink

**Arkana** · 07-01-2012, 08:59 AM

It made CNN and Fox look like the second-rate infotainment shitholes they are and it gave Obama a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment.

**Willinois** · 07-01-2012, 01:13 PM

Another confirmation that being first is more important to them than being accurate. They're obsessed with it. It matters far more to them than it does to the public.

They think they "win" by reporting something before the other networks. I think they win by not being crap. The cable news networks have been huge losers for a long time.

**Velleity** · 07-02-2012, 08:17 AM

He was perhaps a little too eager to spin this. Don't recall which Sunday show it was.

The bottom line is that we have to replace one or two of the "conservatives" on the SCOTUS and since two of ours are up there and not in the best of health we have to replace them with younger liberal justices. The right has made a mockery of the SCOTUS being above politics and I don't think this opinion, which is extremely "conservative" in dicta, relieves Roberts of his well earned reputation for being a rank political hack albeit perhaps not as bad as Scalia.