Sometimes TV news makes me want to cry
This morning, CNN spent a good five minutes talking about a decision from the California Supreme Court that no one had even read yet. In fact, the anchor's live-on-the-air reading of the first page of the ruling led him to assume the outcome was the opposite of the actual conclusion that the court took 12 pages to reach.
Here's how the "breaking" story was first botched at 10:06 Arizona time, transcribed by me through the magic of the TiVo rewind button:
CNN anchor Don Lemon: Just a few minutes ago we told you about that same-sex marriage legislation in front of the California Supreme Court. A decision has been made, and it's just coming down. Pardon me for reading it right off the wire here, but in the decision of Lockyer v. the City and County of San Francisco, this is 2004, the court has "concluded that public officials of the City and County of San Francisco acted unlawfully by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the absence of a judicial determination that ... California statutes limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman are unconstitutional. Our decision in Lockyer emphasized, however, that the substantive question of the constitutional—" and it goes in; that's the end of the copy that I have here, and then there's a much longer version that I'd have to click on, but to understand this we're going to get our legal analyst, Sunny Hostin. She joins us now by telephone.
OK, hold up. Let's count the red flags here:
1. An anchor just read from a court ruling live on the air as it's coming in. Bad idea. Really bad idea. Why? Court rulings are not news stories. They are not written in inverted-pyramid style. They do not have the most important information in the first paragraph or even on the first page. They need to be skimmed before they're reported on. You can't just start reading them over the air, unless you have a good half-hour of airtime to dedicate to the ruling because that's probably about how long it would take to read aloud the entire first section of a case, which in this case culminates with a conclusion on page 12.
2. The court "concluded" in the past tense rather than "concludes" in the present? Hmm. Might we be talking about a prior case and a prior decision? Ding ding ding! That's right! In fact, court rulings often start out by describing, in detail, the premise or historical basis of the case. Today's ruling starts out by describing the outcome of a previous case that dealt with the gay marriages that had been allowed in California but only considered whether they were legal, not whether they laws that outlawed them were constitutional, which brings us to our next read flag...
3. That "substantive question of the constitutional—" Generally, when something's referred to as a "substantive question" and a constitution is involved, that's a good clue that it might be newsworthy. You know, maybe. But thanks to an unfortunate page break, that's where Lemon's live storytime ends. "That's the end of the copy that I have here, and then there's a much longer version that I'd have to click on," he tells viewers before switching gears to talk over the phone with a legal analyst who also has not read the ruling yet.
Let's return to the transcript:
Lemon: So Sunny, did you hear what I said about this ruling?
CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin: I could not. I heard some of it, but I did not hear all of it, but my understanding, is my understanding correct that the court now ruled that the city and county of San Francisco acted unlawfully in issuing marriage licenses?
Lemon: "Unlawfully by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the absence of a judicial determination that the California statutes limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman are unconstitutional."
Again, reading from the first page, when some important details were waiting just at the top of the next page. Remember "the substantive question of the constitutional"? Well, the ruling continues:
validity of the California marriage statutes was not before this court in that proceeding, and that our decision was not intended to reflect any view on that
issue.
And there's the big clue that the whole first page of the ruling was describing a previous case that didn't address the question now at hand. Or, as the court put it:
The present proceeding, involving the consolidated appeal of
six cases that were litigated in the superior court and the Court of Appeal in the
wake of this court’s decision in Lockyer, squarely presents the substantive
constitutional question that was not addressed in Lockyer.
But without this little piece of information, Hostin just has to take a shot in the dark at making sense of what didn't actually happen:
Hostin: Yeah, well I think people, there's going to be a contingency of people and a contingent that are very unhappy with the decision. I can't say that it was unexpected. We knew this top court of California was going to decide today whether to legalize same-sex marriage, and it appears that they have determined that they would not legalize same-sex marriage.
Lemon: So what happens now to all of those people who got married, Sunny?
Hostin: Prior to this ruling their marriages were nullified, and those people made up a large portion of the people that brought this case challenging this ruling, and those peple are really now in the same position that they were in then before this case. Their marriages have been completely nullified.
Lemon: Yeah, and this is, as you said, a huge population or a huge segment of the population is gonna be disappointed, and obviously some people will be cheering this as well. California, the most populous state, obviously this is going to have repercussions across the country. Does this set any new precedents because we know that you can get married in Massachusetts, and it's legal there but what does this mean for the rest of the country?
Hostin: You know, if the court had, certainly, legalized same-sex marriage, I think it would've been significant for the country, but this is not going to do much in terms of moving the ball forward on same-sex marriages anywhere. We know that San Francisco's mayor, Gavin Newsom, has cited California's guarantee of equal protection under the law and in favor of allowing same-sex marriages, and he began allowing same-sex marriages in 2004, and several hundred gay couples were married at city hall, or rather same-sex couples were married at city hall, but this procedure has now been completely invalidated...
And so on and so forth. Lemon and Hostin continue talking about the opposite of the actual ruling until 10:11, when CNN moves on to another story with this kicker from Lemon: "Certainly, now that the legality of the state's ban on same-sex marriage has been effectively upheld, there really is no recourse, at least in California."
At 10:15, viewers get a first tiny little clue that something's amiss:
CNN anchor Brianna Keilar: We heard what California's high court had to say about the issue of same-sex marriage, and coming up we'll hear what San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has to say.
Lemon: Yeah, there's some information we need to give you on that.
Then, at 10:18, a somewhat confused Lemon delivers this monologue more to his computer screen than to the camera:
Lemon: OK, wanna give you some information. Just a couple minutes ago we reported about gay marriage. It is a very, very complicated ruling, and according to the initial information that we got that it was that San Francisco acted unlawfully by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but we are hearing now from people in California — and, hang on, I am checking the information here, we're also hearing from several gay organizations and from our legal team that the bottom line is that the supreme court has overturned the ban on same-sex marriage.
We need to get Sunny Hostin back on the line and to get our legal expert to explain this to us because we're getting some conflicting information here, but according to the wires and to all the information and e-mails that I'm getting from organizations that are involved in this, they are saying that this is an historic, an historic marriage victory in California, victory in California as it concerns same-sex marriage.
I will read this again; this is from the wires and this is reported moments after we reported, the California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for it to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.
Of course, we know the first state is Massachusetts, so according to everything that I'm reading here, it's saying that that ban has been overturned, and now it will be legal for same-sex couples to marry in the state of California, and all of those people who were married, who were issued marriage licenses, their marriage will go on and will be confirmed and will not be null and void, and so again, a very interesting and complicated decision here, but we really need to get our legal person on the phone to explain this. I know that you guys are wrapping and promising more but we need to clarify this for our viewers because this is a huge decision. Obviously, it's going to have political repercussions and repercussions around the country as well. As soon as we can get someone to confirm this information, we'll get it up for you.
At 10:23, Lemon has papers in hand: "Just getting the ruling here from the California Supreme Court coming in to CNN. It is very complicated and a lot of pages and we're going to go through it."
Then, other than the ruling being correctly summed up in a teaser just before a commercial break and in the bottom-of-the-hour headlines, the story doesn't resurface until the top of the next hour when CNN gets Newsom on the phone and justice correspondent Kelli Arena on camera.
Now, having never worked in television myself, I know that I'm not exactly the best to judge. But I do realize that there's time pressure in every cable newsroom, that being first is important, and that doing live TV is incredibly hectic.
And yes, there are many breaking news events that are well-suited for anchors to take things as they come and pass them along live. In natural disasters, terrorist attacks, hostage situations, industrial accidents, and many other events, the situation is constantly changing and new information comes into the newsroom all the time in bits and pieces. A good anchor can take those bits and pieces and put them together into a changing, shifting big picture of what's known at the time.
A court ruling, on the other hand, is a lengthy document that is the product of much thought and writing on the part of the judges or justices who issued it, and it all gets released at once. There are no bits and pieces of the ruling itself that need to filter into a newsroom over time, only people's reactions and statements and the impact of the decision.
So a court ruling should not be treated like an ever-changing developing story. It should not be given to an anchor in bits and pieces. Rather, it should be properly read or skimmed by a reporter who's at least somewhat familiar with the case, who can then pass on the bottom line to the anchor.
If I were in charge at CNN (and if television newsrooms worked the way I envision them in my mind, which I'll admit probably isn't the case) here's how the story would have looked to viewers:
10:06
Lemon: Just a few minutes ago we told you about that same-sex marriage question in front of the California Supreme Court. A decision has been made, and The Most Kick-Ass Legal Team on Television has just received a copy of it. Legal analyst Kelli Arena is looking over the decision, and we'll let you know the outcome shortly.
10:15
Keilar: California's high court has overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage, and coming up we'll hear what San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has to say.
Lemon: More on that story from The Most Kick-Ass Legal Team on Television after the break.
10:18
Lemon: Joining us now by phone is Kelli Arena from our CNN justice unit, The Most Kick-Ass Legal Team on Television. Kelli, gay organizations are calling this an historic marriage victory in California. Tell us about the ruling from the California Supreme Court...