Just one more reason why you should NEVER watch mainstream media.

[boneyard bill]

The mainstream media never gets it right. Part of it has to do with built-in biases, but a good part of it also has to do with the fact that many of these guys, and gals, are just plain dumb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixXberGwzM8&feature=youtu.be

This sorry excuse for a television host (and/or her scriptwriter) is so stupid that she actually thinks that the first lady has the authority to sign acts of Congress into law.

 

[zorq]

The mainstream media never gets it right. Part of it has to do with built-in biases, but a good part of it also has to do with the fact that many of these guys, and gals, are just plain dumb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixXberGwzM8&feature=youtu.be

This sorry excuse for a television host (and/or her scriptwriter) is so stupid that she actually thinks that the first lady has the authority to sign acts of Congress into law.

Yeah, misspoken typos are the reason we should never ever trust anything we see on TV. We never have that problem on other types of media ever. [/sarcasm]

Seriously. Change the "she" into a "he" and this wouldn't have been a you tube video.

Get over it.

 

[bilby]

The crazy far-out fringe media get it wrong more frequently and more comprehensively than the mainstream media; indeed, the definition of 'mainstream' implies that this will be the case - extremists are rarely a good source of information on anything.

Where do you expect people to get their news, if minor script-editing errors (such as saying 'When she signed the bill into law' instead of 'When her husband signed the bill into law') render them completely unusable? The error was not a central part of the story. It is poor form to make such errors, but it is not surprising, nor is it a big deal.

It would be nice if reporters were better educated on the subjects on which they report; but it seems likely that this example is not a factual error as such, but rather a blunder introduced by a script editor. I am sure you can find much better examples than this of real, factual errors; they are fairly common in the 'mainstream' media, and more common still elsewhere. As with all information, it is unwise to rely completely on one single source. Nobody gets it right all the time*.

* Except bilby on Talk Freethought. He is brilliant.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Yeah, when I was in purgatory today, trying to focus on diapers, naturally Fox News was on in the background and the dumb twats who unfortunately were not men were running the same narrative and pretty much in the same context. If the Morlocks try to roll anything back, I hope she veto's it.

 

[boneyard bill]

The mainstream media never gets it right. Part of it has to do with built-in biases, but a good part of it also has to do with the fact that many of these guys, and gals, are just plain dumb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixXberGwzM8&feature=youtu.be

This sorry excuse for a television host (and/or her scriptwriter) is so stupid that she actually thinks that the first lady has the authority to sign acts of Congress into law.

Yeah, misspoken typos are the reason we should never ever trust anything we see on TV. We never have that problem on other types of media ever. [/sarcasm]

Seriously. Change the "she" into a "he" and this wouldn't have been a you tube video.

Get over it.

Oh, I don't think so. For one thing, her script may have been written by a man. For another, men have made similar blunders. I'm reasonably certain that you would be able to find them. But there is one more BIG, BIG difference. CNN is supposed to be a professional news organization. Sure people say stupid things all the time in daily conversation and some people actually post those same dumb comments on the internet. But they are amateurs. They don't likely proof-read their stuff. Often their knowledge of grammar and spelling is very limited. But they don't get hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to do what they're doing!

There was a time when something like this would absolutely unforgiveable for a professional news organization but not anymore. Worse than that, however, is that they are just as bad in reporting facts.

 

[boneyard bill]

The crazy far-out fringe media get it wrong more frequently and more comprehensively than the mainstream media; indeed, the definition of 'mainstream' implies that this will be the case - extremists are rarely a good source of information on anything.

Where do you expect people to get their news, if minor script-editing errors (such as saying 'When she signed the bill into law' instead of 'When her husband signed the bill into law') render them completely unusable? The error was not a central part of the story. It is poor form to make such errors, but it is not surprising, nor is it a big deal.

It would be nice if reporters were better educated on the subjects on which they report; but it seems likely that this example is not a factual error as such, but rather a blunder introduced by a script editor. I am sure you can find much better examples than this of real, factual errors; they are fairly common in the 'mainstream' media, and more common still elsewhere. As with all information, it is unwise to rely completely on one single source. Nobody gets it right all the time*.

* Except bilby on Talk Freethought. He is brilliant.

Of course, amateurs make all kinds of mistakes, and yes, the media makes all kinds of factual errors as well, and that is more significant. But it shouldn't happen in a professional news organization that is supposed to check and double check what it puts out. Nor was this a simple case of say "she" when she meant "he." As you've pointed out the whole phrase would have to have been re-worded.

 

[Arctish]

The mainstream media never gets it right. Part of it has to do with built-in biases, but a good part of it also has to do with the fact that many of these guys, and gals, are just plain dumb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixXberGwzM8&feature=youtu.be

This sorry excuse for a television host (and/or her scriptwriter) is so stupid that she actually thinks that the first lady has the authority to sign acts of Congress into law.

Yeah, misspoken typos are the reason we should never ever trust anything we see on TV. We never have that problem on other types of media ever. [/sarcasm]

Seriously. Change the "she" into a "he" and this wouldn't have been a you tube video.

Get over it.

Oh, I don't think so. For one thing, her script may have been written by a man. For another, men have made similar blunders. I'm reasonably certain that you would be able to find them. But there is one more BIG, BIG difference. CNN is supposed to be a professional news organization. Sure people say stupid things all the time in daily conversation and some people actually post those same dumb comments on the internet. But they are amateurs. They don't likely proof-read their stuff. Often their knowledge of grammar and spelling is very limited. But they don't get hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to do what they're doing!

There was a time when something like this would absolutely unforgiveable for a professional news organization but not anymore. Worse than that, however, is that they are just as bad in reporting facts.

I agree.

Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, and the newscasters of my youth would have been absolutely mortified if they'd made such a stupid error. Their producers would have faced the wrath of the broadcasting company and the sponsors for airing it, and whoever wrote it would have been out of a job within 24 hours. And this was back when the news was only a small part of what ABC, NBC, and CBS offered.

The lowering of standards on a cable channel that is almost exclusively a news outlet is appalling.

 

[bilby]

The crazy far-out fringe media get it wrong more frequently and more comprehensively than the mainstream media; indeed, the definition of 'mainstream' implies that this will be the case - extremists are rarely a good source of information on anything.

Where do you expect people to get their news, if minor script-editing errors (such as saying 'When she signed the bill into law' instead of 'When her husband signed the bill into law') render them completely unusable? The error was not a central part of the story. It is poor form to make such errors, but it is not surprising, nor is it a big deal.

It would be nice if reporters were better educated on the subjects on which they report; but it seems likely that this example is not a factual error as such, but rather a blunder introduced by a script editor. I am sure you can find much better examples than this of real, factual errors; they are fairly common in the 'mainstream' media, and more common still elsewhere. As with all information, it is unwise to rely completely on one single source. Nobody gets it right all the time*.

* Except bilby on Talk Freethought. He is brilliant.

Of course, amateurs make all kinds of mistakes, and yes, the media makes all kinds of factual errors as well, and that is more significant. But it shouldn't happen in a professional news organization that is supposed to check and double check what it puts out. Nor was this a simple case of say "she" when she meant "he." As you've pointed out the whole phrase would have to have been re-worded.

So standards are lax at CNN, and they make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. That is far from being a sufficient reason to NEVER watch mainstream media; If you want checking, you need to do it yourself - as you, I, and most other people who watched the video were readily able to do.

I am struggling to see the logical steps between your evidence and your conclusion here.

1) CNN made an error in one story, whereby they incorrectly stated that the first lady (who was the focus of the story), and not the president, had signed a bill into law.
2) ???
3) You should NEVER watch mainstream media.

Would you care to make an attempt to fill the gap here? I can see how a conclusion like "People should be aware that CNN make occasional errors" would be justified; or even "People should be aware that any information source may be prone to error". Perhaps one might reasonably conclude that "I should write to CNN, pointing out the error, and ask them to tighten their standards". But "You should NEVER watch mainstream media" is a deeply flawed conclusion - particularly given that by avoiding mainstream media one exposes oneself to a greater incidence of such errors of fact, not a lesser one.

 

[boneyard bill]

The crazy far-out fringe media get it wrong more frequently and more comprehensively than the mainstream media; indeed, the definition of 'mainstream' implies that this will be the case - extremists are rarely a good source of information on anything.

Where do you expect people to get their news, if minor script-editing errors (such as saying 'When she signed the bill into law' instead of 'When her husband signed the bill into law') render them completely unusable? The error was not a central part of the story. It is poor form to make such errors, but it is not surprising, nor is it a big deal.

It would be nice if reporters were better educated on the subjects on which they report; but it seems likely that this example is not a factual error as such, but rather a blunder introduced by a script editor. I am sure you can find much better examples than this of real, factual errors; they are fairly common in the 'mainstream' media, and more common still elsewhere. As with all information, it is unwise to rely completely on one single source. Nobody gets it right all the time*.

* Except bilby on Talk Freethought. He is brilliant.

Of course, amateurs make all kinds of mistakes, and yes, the media makes all kinds of factual errors as well, and that is more significant. But it shouldn't happen in a professional news organization that is supposed to check and double check what it puts out. Nor was this a simple case of say "she" when she meant "he." As you've pointed out the whole phrase would have to have been re-worded.

So standards are lax at CNN, and they make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. That is far from being a sufficient reason to NEVER watch mainstream media; If you want checking, you need to do it yourself - as you, I, and most other people who watched the video were readily able to do.

I am struggling to see the logical steps between your evidence and your conclusion here.

1) CNN made an error in one story, whereby they incorrectly stated that the first lady (who was the focus of the story), and not the president, had signed a bill into law.
2) ???
3) You should NEVER watch mainstream media.

Would you care to make an attempt to fill the gap here? I can see how a conclusion like "People should be aware that CNN make occasional errors" would be justified; or even "People should be aware that any information source may be prone to error". Perhaps one might reasonably conclude that "I should write to CNN, pointing out the error, and ask them to tighten their standards". But "You should NEVER watch mainstream media" is a deeply flawed conclusion - particularly given that by avoiding mainstream media one exposes oneself to a greater incidence of such errors of fact, not a lesser one.

First of all, I did not acquit the mainstream media of making factual errors. This was, in fact, a factual error as well as a godawful ignorant comment.

Secondly, while I recognize that non-mainstream outlets sometimes make errors as bad as this, that doesn't give me any reason why I should watch the mainstream. The fact is that many rank amateurs do NOT make such errors. I am not arguing that you should not watch mainstream media but that you should watch just any and every non-mainstream outlet. I am saying many that are not in the mainstream are better than the so-called professionals of the msm and you will likely get better grammar and more accurate facts from them than from the msm. I'm not arguing indiscriminate viewing of anything.

 

[bilby]

The crazy far-out fringe media get it wrong more frequently and more comprehensively than the mainstream media; indeed, the definition of 'mainstream' implies that this will be the case - extremists are rarely a good source of information on anything.

Where do you expect people to get their news, if minor script-editing errors (such as saying 'When she signed the bill into law' instead of 'When her husband signed the bill into law') render them completely unusable? The error was not a central part of the story. It is poor form to make such errors, but it is not surprising, nor is it a big deal.

It would be nice if reporters were better educated on the subjects on which they report; but it seems likely that this example is not a factual error as such, but rather a blunder introduced by a script editor. I am sure you can find much better examples than this of real, factual errors; they are fairly common in the 'mainstream' media, and more common still elsewhere. As with all information, it is unwise to rely completely on one single source. Nobody gets it right all the time*.

* Except bilby on Talk Freethought. He is brilliant.

Of course, amateurs make all kinds of mistakes, and yes, the media makes all kinds of factual errors as well, and that is more significant. But it shouldn't happen in a professional news organization that is supposed to check and double check what it puts out. Nor was this a simple case of say "she" when she meant "he." As you've pointed out the whole phrase would have to have been re-worded.

So standards are lax at CNN, and they make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. That is far from being a sufficient reason to NEVER watch mainstream media; If you want checking, you need to do it yourself - as you, I, and most other people who watched the video were readily able to do.

I am struggling to see the logical steps between your evidence and your conclusion here.

1) CNN made an error in one story, whereby they incorrectly stated that the first lady (who was the focus of the story), and not the president, had signed a bill into law.
2) ???
3) You should NEVER watch mainstream media.

Would you care to make an attempt to fill the gap here? I can see how a conclusion like "People should be aware that CNN make occasional errors" would be justified; or even "People should be aware that any information source may be prone to error". Perhaps one might reasonably conclude that "I should write to CNN, pointing out the error, and ask them to tighten their standards". But "You should NEVER watch mainstream media" is a deeply flawed conclusion - particularly given that by avoiding mainstream media one exposes oneself to a greater incidence of such errors of fact, not a lesser one.

First of all, I did not acquit the mainstream media of making factual errors. This was, in fact, a factual error as well as a godawful ignorant comment.

Perhaps so; but it clearly wasn't an attempt to be deliberately deceptive - it was, in short, a simple error of the sort that could be made by anyone. As such, it does not constitute sufficient evidence to accept the OP assertion that '...you should NEVER watch mainstream media'

Secondly, while I recognize that non-mainstream outlets sometimes make errors as bad as this, that doesn't give me any reason why I should watch the mainstream.

Nobody said it did. But it also doesn't give any reason why '...you should NEVER watch mainstream media'

The fact is that many rank amateurs do NOT make such errors.

Nonsense. Everyone makes such errors. The only way to completely avoid them is not to speak.

I am not arguing that you should not watch mainstream media but that you should watch just any and every non-mainstream outlet.

No; but you ARE arguing that '...you should NEVER watch mainstream media', which is downright silly on its face, and is assuredly NOT supportable on the basis of the evidence in the OP.

I am saying many that are not in the mainstream are better than the so-called professionals of the msm and you will likely get better grammar and more accurate facts from them than from the msm.

I am sure you are; but you are not presenting a shred of evidence to back that assertion, so why should I accept it? And even if it were true, how would one determine which media outlets are the best, and which are the worst?

I'm not arguing indiscriminate viewing of anything.

You are not arguing at all - you are asserting, based on a video clip that does not support your assertion, that '...you should NEVER watch mainstream media'.

 

[ksen]

Bill, what sources of news do you recommend/endorse?

 

[bilby]

Bill, what sources of news do you recommend/endorse?

For TV news, SBS World News, or ABC (Australia) are my main sources.

Online, the BBC is better than many; I see odd bits of news linked from friends on a huge range of English language news sites, and most are pretty dire. There is a lot of news, but only a little reportage, so most events are covered in thousands of places, based on reports from a handful of actual reporters on the scene, usually from AP or Reuters.

The best of a bad lot for printed newspapers over here is the Financial Review; their political position I don't often agree with, but they are better than most at getting the important facts into print, IMO. The Sydney Morning Herald is not too bad - at least it isn't the Courier Mail; I rarely have time to read a newspaper these days; if I do buy one, it is usually the weekend Fin Review.

 

[zorq]

The mainstream media never gets it right. Part of it has to do with built-in biases, but a good part of it also has to do with the fact that many of these guys, and gals, are just plain dumb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixXberGwzM8&feature=youtu.be

This sorry excuse for a television host (and/or her scriptwriter) is so stupid that she actually thinks that the first lady has the authority to sign acts of Congress into law.

Yeah, misspoken typos are the reason we should never ever trust anything we see on TV. We never have that problem on other types of media ever. [/sarcasm]

Seriously. Change the "she" into a "he" and this wouldn't have been a you tube video.

Get over it.

Oh, I don't think so. For one thing, her script may have been written by a man. For another, men have made similar blunders. I'm reasonably certain that you would be able to find them.

Uh... I was talking about the words the newscaster spoke, not the gender of the news caster when I was referring to changing the "she" into a "he."
If the news caster had said, "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when he signed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act into law." Everyone would have thought that the news caster was referring to Obama and not Mrs. Obama. It still would have been a clumsy sentence but perfectly valid and accurate. You are telling us to never-ever-ever watch CNN because one person one time typed one extra letter into the teleprompter.

But there is one more BIG, BIG difference. CNN is supposed to be a professional news organization. Sure people say stupid things all the time in daily conversation and some people actually post those same dumb comments on the internet. But they are amateurs. They don't likely proof-read their stuff. Often their knowledge of grammar and spelling is very limited. But they don't get hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to do what they're doing!

There was a time when something like this would absolutely unforgiveable for a professional news organization but not anymore. Worse than that, however, is that they are just as bad in reporting facts.

No. People have been making mistakes on the air forever. Of course we expect a higher level of excellence on more professional outlets. But the claim that mistakes like this have never happened before 24 hour news networks were on the air or if they did the mistaken person was fired on the spot? That's preposterous.

 

[Arctish]

If the news caster had said, "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when he signed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act into law." Everyone would have thought that the news caster was referring to Obama and not Mrs. Obama. It still would have been a clumsy sentence but perfectly valid and accurate.

I don't think so. I think it would have been just as embarrassing for the person who said it.

The newscaster was referring to the person the audience just saw in the sound bite. If the newscaster said "he" and indicated it was the President when clearly it was the First Lady, that would have been ridiculous too, though perhaps not as ridiculous as saying the First Lady signed a bill into law. The Daily Show would have covered the President Obama-in-a-dress story in a heartbeat.

The only way to salvage that report would have been to re-word the statement so it read "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act was signed into law."

People have been making mistakes on the air forever. Of course we expect a higher level of excellence on more professional outlets. But the claim that mistakes like this have never happened before 24 hour news networks were on the air or if they did the mistaken person was fired on the spot? That's preposterous.

Mistakes happen, but the standards of professional news broadcasting have certainly slipped since the 1960s-1980s. An error like this should have been caught, if not by the newscaster then by someone in the newsroom.

 

[zorq]

I don't think so. I think it would have been just as embarrassing for the person who said it.

The newscaster was referring to the person the audience just saw in the sound bite. If the newscaster said "he" and indicated it was the President when clearly it was the First Lady, that would have been ridiculous too, though perhaps not as ridiculous as saying the First Lady signed a bill into law. The Daily Show would have covered the President Obama-in-a-dress story in a heartbeat.

The only way to salvage that report would have been to re-word the statement so it read "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act was signed into law."

People have been making mistakes on the air forever. Of course we expect a higher level of excellence on more professional outlets. But the claim that mistakes like this have never happened before 24 hour news networks were on the air or if they did the mistaken person was fired on the spot? That's preposterous.

Mistakes happen, but the standards of professional news broadcasting have certainly slipped since the 1960s-1980s. An error like this should have been caught, if not by the newscaster then by someone in the newsroom.

The news clip they had just cut from pictured both Michelle and Barak Obama. Pronouns don't have to refer to nouns that have been previously mentioned.

When we just saw two people, one a man and one a woman. Where the man has one of the most recognizable names and faces in the entire world. Simply referring to "he" is going to be understood.

If I told you "Mrs. Robertson thought this was a bad idea. He thought differently." Would you be confused?

 

[Arctish]

I don't think so. I think it would have been just as embarrassing for the person who said it.

The newscaster was referring to the person the audience just saw in the sound bite. If the newscaster said "he" and indicated it was the President when clearly it was the First Lady, that would have been ridiculous too, though perhaps not as ridiculous as saying the First Lady signed a bill into law. The Daily Show would have covered the President Obama-in-a-dress story in a heartbeat.

The only way to salvage that report would have been to re-word the statement so it read "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act was signed into law."

People have been making mistakes on the air forever. Of course we expect a higher level of excellence on more professional outlets. But the claim that mistakes like this have never happened before 24 hour news networks were on the air or if they did the mistaken person was fired on the spot? That's preposterous.

Mistakes happen, but the standards of professional news broadcasting have certainly slipped since the 1960s-1980s. An error like this should have been caught, if not by the newscaster then by someone in the newsroom.

The news clip they had just cut from pictured both Michelle and Barak Obama. Pronouns don't have to refer to nouns that have been previously mentioned.

When a sound bite ends and a newscaster says "That was {insert name here}..." , he or she is clearly referring the person who was speaking. The only one speaking in that clip was Michelle Obama, so the only one the newscaster could have been referring to was the First lady. Going on to say the First Lady signed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act into law was an incredibly stupid statement, on a par with saying Betty Ford pardoned Richard Nixon or that Barbara Bush signed a trade agreement with Japan.

Someone at CNN should have noticed the stupidity before it was broadcast. They didn't.

 

[bilby]

I don't think so. I think it would have been just as embarrassing for the person who said it.

The newscaster was referring to the person the audience just saw in the sound bite. If the newscaster said "he" and indicated it was the President when clearly it was the First Lady, that would have been ridiculous too, though perhaps not as ridiculous as saying the First Lady signed a bill into law. The Daily Show would have covered the President Obama-in-a-dress story in a heartbeat.

The only way to salvage that report would have been to re-word the statement so it read "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act was signed into law."

People have been making mistakes on the air forever. Of course we expect a higher level of excellence on more professional outlets. But the claim that mistakes like this have never happened before 24 hour news networks were on the air or if they did the mistaken person was fired on the spot? That's preposterous.

Mistakes happen, but the standards of professional news broadcasting have certainly slipped since the 1960s-1980s. An error like this should have been caught, if not by the newscaster then by someone in the newsroom.

The news clip they had just cut from pictured both Michelle and Barak Obama. Pronouns don't have to refer to nouns that have been previously mentioned.

When a sound bite ends and a newscaster says "That was {insert name here}..." , he or she is clearly referring the person who was speaking. The only one speaking in that clip was Michelle Obama, so the only one the newscaster could have been referring to was the First lady. Going on to say the First Lady signed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act into law was an incredibly stupid statement, on a par with saying Betty Ford pardoned Richard Nixon or that Barbara Bush signed a trade agreement with Japan.

Someone at CNN should have noticed the stupidity before it was broadcast. They didn't.

Yes. That's what makes it a mistake. It is obviously accidental, and not an attempt to mislead; mistakes are regrettable, and professional organisations should strive to eliminate them. But they will occasionally happen anyway.

And - and this is the crux of the OP - the making of one error (no matter how foolish) by one news organisation is NOT a reason why one should "NEVER watch" the output of that organisation. And it is even more assuredly NOT a reason why one should "NEVER watch mainstream media".

The vast gulf of reason between the OP and the evidence provided to support it is beyond a joke. And yet not one single shred of additional evidence is being presented.

The OP is unsupported slander against a large sector of an industry, based on a simple and unremarkable error of the kind that is endemic in our society.

Why it was ever posted here is a mystery to me. It belongs in Humour, captioned along the lines of "Newsreader makes silly mistake".

There is zero political content other than an unsupported assertion.

 

[zorq]

I don't think so. I think it would have been just as embarrassing for the person who said it.

The newscaster was referring to the person the audience just saw in the sound bite. If the newscaster said "he" and indicated it was the President when clearly it was the First Lady, that would have been ridiculous too, though perhaps not as ridiculous as saying the First Lady signed a bill into law. The Daily Show would have covered the President Obama-in-a-dress story in a heartbeat.

The only way to salvage that report would have been to re-word the statement so it read "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act was signed into law."

People have been making mistakes on the air forever. Of course we expect a higher level of excellence on more professional outlets. But the claim that mistakes like this have never happened before 24 hour news networks were on the air or if they did the mistaken person was fired on the spot? That's preposterous.

Mistakes happen, but the standards of professional news broadcasting have certainly slipped since the 1960s-1980s. An error like this should have been caught, if not by the newscaster then by someone in the newsroom.

The news clip they had just cut from pictured both Michelle and Barak Obama. Pronouns don't have to refer to nouns that have been previously mentioned.

When a sound bite ends and a newscaster says "That was {insert name here}..." , he or she is clearly referring the person who was speaking. The only one speaking in that clip was Michelle Obama, so the only one the newscaster could have been referring to was the First lady. Going on to say the First Lady signed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act into law was an incredibly stupid statement, on a par with saying Betty Ford pardoned Richard Nixon or that Barbara Bush signed a trade agreement with Japan.

Someone at CNN should have noticed the stupidity before it was broadcast. They didn't.

I see you ignored the second half of my post.

Were you or were you not confused by my statement regarding Mrs. Robertson and "He"?

I maintain my claim that pronouns do not have to refer to a noun that has already been mentioned. I maintain my original claim. If the newscaster had said, "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when he signed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act into law," this clip would never had made it as a You-tube video.

Also, this was a live broadcast on a 24 hour news network. Mistakes happen. This sort of thing doesn't go through a committee before getting broadcast. And it frankly to me wasn't worth blowing their 7 second censorship delay on something so trivial. Especially since she didn't say anything censor-worthy.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

On the news this morning, the announcer said that if the New York Rangers, who are leading their best of seven series 3-2, win tonight they could advance the Stanley Cup finals. It's not that they could advance, it's that they would advance. There's no other factors beyond the win.

Fucking lying whore

Sure, she corrected herself a little later, but that's clearly not sufficient. I'm boycotting this station until the bitch is publicly whipped out of the building for misleading her audience this this way.

 

[Arctish]

I don't think so. I think it would have been just as embarrassing for the person who said it.

The newscaster was referring to the person the audience just saw in the sound bite. If the newscaster said "he" and indicated it was the President when clearly it was the First Lady, that would have been ridiculous too, though perhaps not as ridiculous as saying the First Lady signed a bill into law. The Daily Show would have covered the President Obama-in-a-dress story in a heartbeat.

The only way to salvage that report would have been to re-word the statement so it read "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act was signed into law."

People have been making mistakes on the air forever. Of course we expect a higher level of excellence on more professional outlets. But the claim that mistakes like this have never happened before 24 hour news networks were on the air or if they did the mistaken person was fired on the spot? That's preposterous.

Mistakes happen, but the standards of professional news broadcasting have certainly slipped since the 1960s-1980s. An error like this should have been caught, if not by the newscaster then by someone in the newsroom.

The news clip they had just cut from pictured both Michelle and Barak Obama. Pronouns don't have to refer to nouns that have been previously mentioned.

When a sound bite ends and a newscaster says "That was {insert name here}..." , he or she is clearly referring the person who was speaking. The only one speaking in that clip was Michelle Obama, so the only one the newscaster could have been referring to was the First lady. Going on to say the First Lady signed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act into law was an incredibly stupid statement, on a par with saying Betty Ford pardoned Richard Nixon or that Barbara Bush signed a trade agreement with Japan.

Someone at CNN should have noticed the stupidity before it was broadcast. They didn't.

Yes. That's what makes it a mistake. It is obviously accidental, and not an attempt to mislead; mistakes are regrettable, and professional organisations should strive to eliminate them. But they will occasionally happen anyway.

And - and this is the crux of the OP - the making of one error (no matter how foolish) by one news organisation is NOT a reason why one should "NEVER watch" the output of that organisation. And it is even more assuredly NOT a reason why one should "NEVER watch mainstream media".

The vast gulf of reason between the OP and the evidence provided to support it is beyond a joke. And yet not one single shred of additional evidence is being presented.

The OP is unsupported slander against a large sector of an industry, based on a simple and unremarkable error of the kind that is endemic in our society.

Why it was ever posted here is a mystery to me. It belongs in Humour, captioned along the lines of "Newsreader makes silly mistake".

There is zero political content other than an unsupported assertion.

I'll leave it to boneyard bill to discuss his reasoning with you.

I think the news reader's error went way beyond "silly mistake" territory. I think it's a clear indication the info-tainment culture has completely subverted "The Most Trusted Name In News". I don't know what kind of qualifications you need to be a news reporter on CNN these days, but clearly you don't need to be savvy enough to understand Nancy Reagan didn't sign the Firearm Owners Protection Act into law.