Another flash-journalism fail

As you probably know by now, the reporters got this story wrong.  We now know that the Supreme Court ruled that the "mandate" was really just a tax in disguise and a "mandate," were it to happen, would not pass muster.  This is what a three-minute skimming will lead to when the camera is on and the microphone live.

I have read many, many opinions written by the Supreme Court of the United States.  All of them are long.  None of them are simple.  Cases reach the Supreme Court because the answer was not an easy one.   I have read cases multiple times and still felt like the meaning escaped me.

What I am trying to say is this stuff isn't simple.

This stuff is dense.  And, the above clip represents a convergence between the over-simplifying and overly-rushed world of the 24-hour news cycle and the intense and deep jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.

The news anchors chose to be first and wrong rather than late and right.  I blame them as journalists, but ultimately it is a losing battle.  Why?  Because as soon as a reporter says, "no, I'm not going on the air while skimming a one-inch thick opinion until I have figured out what it says and I will not go on the air looking lost and clueless," that reporter will be fired and a talking head willing to look like a talking ass will be hired.

The business model demands that your viewers not wait even five minutes to know an answer.  And, the channel that gets the answer first seems to be celebrated as a winner.  However, I think only news personalities know any kind of score because scoops last about 3 minutes in this world before it is echoed into oblivion by everyone else.  Who was actually first becomes irrelevant and the "victory" is fleeting.

I am so glad I don't work in journalism anymore.  The pressure to be fast with information has completely outpaced the old notion that it is better to be a little late and right than first and wrong.  I feel sorry for the lady who was skimming the opinion while holding a microphone, but I am also conflicted.  I feel for her because she is doing what she was asked to do.  But, my inner-journalist says she should have insisted on getting it right first.  Trying to read from a random section of a Supreme Court opinion is no way to accurately report on its outcome.  Maybe you have to have read many of them to get that, but it seems obvious to me.  I have read some of the most convincing arguments against a case within the case itself written by the majority.  It's how they "show the math."

So, what is the lesson?  It seems that we're all just going to have to deal with this in journalism.  And we will tolerate it because the fix will come nearly as quick and the "wrong" information won't be allowed to sit and rot.  In a perverse way, the need for accuracy has been made irrelevant because the instant media cleans up its own mess so quickly.  Well, that is if you don't mind looking clueless.  And they don't.

For me, the credibility has been long gone.

The article I read about the decision on CNN.com was 15% about the decision and 85% recitation of what polls indicated that people wanted to see happen.  Our news is now a quick nugget of new information followed by how we "feel" about it.  Lost in the entire process was articulation of the reasoning, meaning or ramifications of the decision.  We do know how we "feel" about it and how each side will spin it, though.  And, I guess that's what everything boils down to.

But the talking heads don't even need to worry because they will be on to the next vapid distraction before the tear streaks are wiped off of the make-up caked face of whichever talking head was pushed on camera to boil it down while figuring it out.

It's a really dumb way to report news, but it is apparently what the public wants.