Fox News

Back to the Facts

Conservative commentators question whether news spinning by the likes of Fox News mislead their audience into believing Mitt Romney would win in a landslide.Expecting the truth is an important as telling the truth, as evidenced by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's apparent shock that he lost an election he thought was in the bag.

Right-wing political spin-masters convinced themselves — or chose to believe — that credible polling and poll analysis, such as provided by The New York Times' Nate Silver, was "lame stream media" misinformation. They snarked that it was foolish, based on what happened in the 2010 elections, to use polling samples showing more Democrats voting than Republicans.

They were dreadfully wrong.

Convergence, Chaos and the Supreme Court

In much the same way the earth’s tectonic plates are grinding against each other off our Pacific shoreline — potentially creating a powerful force that could reshape our landscape — the world of technology and the news media universe are in collision. The forces emerging from the evolutionary  “convergence” of computers and television already are changing where and how we get our news. Convergence is the keyword.

Two seemingly unrelated news events last week could show us how and where we may find the trusted news sources of the future. The events: The high court's health care ruling and the split up of Rupert Murdock’s News Corp.

First, the Supreme Court’s affirmative ruling on the Affordable Care Act. News coverage was so confusing that even President Obama, who taught constitutional law at Harvard University, at first misunderstood the outcome and thought he had lost the court’s vote.

The leading cable news networks simply got the story wrong. CNN aired three differing stories on the court’s decision in 15 minutes, says reporter Luke Broadwater of The Baltimore Sun, adding that Fox wasn’t much better. 

“In addition to hitting the airwaves,” Broadwater wrote, “the network also sent out two breaking news alerts.”

• “10:09: The Supreme Court has struck down the individual mandate for health care — the legislation that requires all to have health insurance.”

• “10:18: Correction: The Supreme Court backs all parts of President Obama's signature health care law, including the individual mandate that requires all to have health insurance.”

The New York Times seemed to take a more cautious approach, Broadwater wrote, tweeting the following: "The Supreme Court has ruled on President Obama's health-care overhaul, and Times reporters and editors are analyzing the decision. Once we are comfortable with its basic meaning, you can expect a torrent of coverage."

 A red-faced CNN emailed a statement, explaining the initial confusion: 

"In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts initially said that the individual mandate was not a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause.  CNN reported that fact, but then wrongly reported that therefore the court struck down the mandate as unconstitutional. However, that was not the whole of the Court’s ruling.  CNN regrets that it didn't wait to report out the full and complete opinion regarding the mandate.  We made a correction within a few minutes and apologize for the error."

Jon Stewart of The Daily Show had his own take on what happened in the race for “news firstiness."

In simple terms, the print media proved to be a more reliable source.