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

[Tom Sawyer]

Really? Of all the legitimate reasons to be offended and depressed about the state of reporting on CNN, a trivial grammatical error which in no way impacted the content of the report is what people are focusing on?

This is too lame to be taken seriously.

 

[Arctish]

Really? Of all the legitimate reasons to be offended and depressed about the state of reporting on CNN, a trivial grammatical error which in no way impacted the content of the report is what people are focusing on?

This is too lame to be taken seriously.

That's because you and others keep trying to cast this as a trivial grammatical error. It wasn't. The report was about Michelle Obama, and the claim was that she signed a bill into law and was taking unusual steps to defend it.

Maybe the claim was the result of poor copywriting and editing. Or maybe it was the result of overreaching. CNN was heavily imply the First Lady was responsible for the legislation. Perhaps that little "slip" was there as an attention-getter. But either way, this absurd claim that changing "she" to "he" would have fixed everything just shows how low expectations are for the quality of CNN reporting.

"That was Hillary Clinton speaking in 1983, shortly before she signed the Brady Bill gun control legislation into law. Oops, I meant to say he".

 

[bilby]

Really? Of all the legitimate reasons to be offended and depressed about the state of reporting on CNN, a trivial grammatical error which in no way impacted the content of the report is what people are focusing on?

This is too lame to be taken seriously.

That's because you and others keep trying to cast this as a trivial grammatical error. It wasn't. The report was about Michelle Obama, and the claim was that she signed a bill into law and was taking unusual steps to defend it.

Maybe the claim was the result of poor copywriting and editing. Or maybe it was the result of overreaching. CNN was heavily imply the First Lady was responsible for the legislation. Perhaps that little "slip" was there as an attention-getter. But either way, this absurd claim that changing "she" to "he" would have fixed everything just shows how low expectations are for the quality of CNN reporting.

"That was Hillary Clinton speaking in 1983, shortly before she signed the Brady Bill gun control legislation into law. Oops, I meant to say he".

So are you saying that you honestly think the editorial staff at CNN believe the First Lady can sign bills into law; or are you saying that you honestly think that CNN are trying to deliberately mislead the US public into believing that?

Whichever you believe, what basis do you have for that belief? The video in the OP is consistent with an error, or ignorance, or malice. Why do you rule out error?

The vast majority of people who view the video are aware that the First Lady can't sign bills into law - if they were not, the video wouldn't have any impact - so it seems very unlikely that the CNN editorial staff would not be aware of this; and it would be pretty pointless to try to fool people into thinking she can - who would that benefit?

On the other hand, mistakes are commonplace; people make them all the time.

How can you justify the assumption that this was NOT a simple error in the script editing process? William of Ockham would weep.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Really? Of all the legitimate reasons to be offended and depressed about the state of reporting on CNN, a trivial grammatical error which in no way impacted the content of the report is what people are focusing on?

This is too lame to be taken seriously.

That's because you and others keep trying to cast this as a trivial grammatical error. It wasn't. The report was about Michelle Obama, and the claim was that she signed a bill into law and was taking unusual steps to defend it.

Maybe the claim was the result of poor copywriting and editing. Or maybe it was the result of overreaching. CNN was heavily imply the First Lady was responsible for the legislation. Perhaps that little "slip" was there as an attention-getter. But either way, this absurd claim that changing "she" to "he" would have fixed everything just shows how low expectations are for the quality of CNN reporting.

"That was Hillary Clinton speaking in 1983, shortly before she signed the Brady Bill gun control legislation into law. Oops, I meant to say he".

Ya ... so you seriously think that CNN was trying to say that the First Lady was the one who signed the bill into law?

I ... don't even know how to reply to that. What is their rationale here?

 

[Arctish]

Really? Of all the legitimate reasons to be offended and depressed about the state of reporting on CNN, a trivial grammatical error which in no way impacted the content of the report is what people are focusing on?

This is too lame to be taken seriously.

That's because you and others keep trying to cast this as a trivial grammatical error. It wasn't. The report was about Michelle Obama, and the claim was that she signed a bill into law and was taking unusual steps to defend it.

Maybe the claim was the result of poor copywriting and editing. Or maybe it was the result of overreaching. CNN was heavily imply the First Lady was responsible for the legislation. Perhaps that little "slip" was there as an attention-getter. But either way, this absurd claim that changing "she" to "he" would have fixed everything just shows how low expectations are for the quality of CNN reporting.

"That was Hillary Clinton speaking in 1983, shortly before she signed the Brady Bill gun control legislation into law. Oops, I meant to say he".

So are you saying that you honestly think the editorial staff at CNN believe the First Lady can sign bills into law; or are you saying that you honestly think that CNN are trying to deliberately mislead the US public into believing that?

Whichever you believe, what basis do you have for that belief? The video in the OP is consistent with an error, or ignorance, or malice. Why do you rule out error?

I didn't rule out error. Why did you rule out my not ruling out error?

The vast majority of people who view the video are aware that the First Lady can't sign bills into law - if they were not, the video wouldn't have any impact - so it seems very unlikely that the CNN editorial staff would not be aware of this; and it would be pretty pointless to try to fool people into thinking she can - who would that benefit?

Exactly! Which is why when a CNN news anchor says the First Lady signed a bill into law it gets noticed. We don't expect The Most Trusted Name In News to be untrustworthy, and it's an unpleasant surprise to realize they might be.

On the other hand, mistakes are commonplace; people make them all the time.

How can you justify the assumption that this was NOT a simple error in the script editing process?

I haven't so I don't.

William of Ockham would weep.

She'll get over it.