Pretty funny, no?
Update 6/30/12 8:42 a.m.: The Standard's Andy Howell expands upon Jon Stewart's "race doesn't always go to the swift" theme with this instructive morning column, detailing the S-E's conservative policy for social networking media posts and noting that "[i]n this age of immediate news and multi-platform delivery, this shows how quickly incorrect information can be disseminated":
And national media-wise, CNN and Fox are taking their well-deserved lumps... from coast to coast:
- Early reports on health-care decision from CNN, Fox overturned one mandate: Accuracy (Washington Post)
- CNN, Fox fumble the call, capping months of media misperception (Los Angeles Times)
7 comments:
Sorry, Mr. Crackers.
CNN "the most trusted source in news" No kidding.
Pretty good column from the Deseret News:
CNN’s painful health-care lesson
“Embarrassing.” “F****** humiliating.” “Shameful.” A veteran producer jumps the gun, a young correspondent goes too far, and the network's crisis deepens:
CNN News Staffers Revolt Over Blown Coverage
It wasn't faulty reporting. It was a gift to comedians and comedy writers everywhere.
Rebel With A Cause2:In regards to the question of why Chief Justice Roberts voted with the Liberals in the Health Care Law, there are several theories. He may have been intimidated by President Obama's April statement that he felt sure the court would not vote against a law legally passed by a majority of Congress (untrue. It barely passed by Democratic members only.) Could it possibly be he envied Justice Kennedy's reputation for being the swing vote in the court, sometimes voting with the Conservatives and sometimes with the Liberals , and thought he would like to be the one making the deciding vote . But whatever his real motive was in his surprising vote, it required rewriting the Health Law and changing it to a taxing provision instead of using the Commerce Clause under which he thought it would be unconstitutional. Why didn't he just vote against it ,then. Why did he take the liberty to change it so he could vote for it? Talk about Judicial Activism. Anything to avoid having his court appear to be a right-wing court.
In regards to the question of why Chief Justice Roberts voted with the Liberals in the Health Care Law, there are several theories. He may have been intimidated by President Obama's April statement that he felt sure the court would not vote against a law legally passed by a majority of Congress (untrue. It barely passed by Democratic members only.) Could it possibly be he envied Justice Kennedy's reputation for being the swing vote in the court, sometimes voting with the Conservatives and sometimes with the Liberals , and thought he would like to be the one making the deciding vote . But whatever his real motive was in his surprising vote, it required rewriting the Health Law and changing it to a taxing provision instead of using the Commerce Clause under which he thought it would be unconstitutional. Why didn't he just vote against it ,then. Why did he take the liberty to change it so he could vote for it? Talk about Judicial Activism. Anything to avoid having his court appear to be a right-wing court
Post a Comment