Alternative is to hire their own experts, but they chose not to do this and it’s unlikely to be sustainable in the long run.

Individuals, and small groups of individuals will be breaking news faster and more accurately, and CNN can’t really compete with this.

The opportunity is to aggregate and curate from everyone everywhere.

Since this story mentions, on multiple occasions, CNN being beaten by an 81-year-old blogger, here’s some additional context.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-scotusblog-one-goal-beat-everybody-and-break-news-of-health-care-ruling/2012/06/27/gJQA1TZp7V_story.html

Two main points of interest from that story that apply to the discussion here:

1) The 81-year-old blogger was hardly doing it on his own. He had four lawyers on hand to help decipher the ruling (which also raises the question of how many lawyers did CNN have on hand).

2) He and his blog were fueled by the same misplaced ambition for the scoop that afflicts mainstream outlets like CNN. For instance, this quote:

“Our number one ambition is to beat everybody. It’s a source of pride. I may need to get some sharper elbows to make sure we get it first.”

And from his publisher:

“The TV people out front literally won’t have it for about two minutes. After they hand it to Lyle, I expect 25 seconds after that, we’ll have it on the live blog. I would be surprised if the Associated Press can beat us.”

It’s actually kind of disgusting how the desire for the scoop has people literally counting the extra seconds or minutes that it takes to get their hands on the document depending on where they are standing. But where SCOTUSblog and outlets such as the NYT (which you mentioned) deserve credit is that when it came down to it, they put getting it right before getting it first. Of course, some of that is also made possible by the format in which they were disseminating. A pause on a live blog or on Twitter is less awkward than silence on live TV.

Yes. The answer is in reporting news versus interpreting the news. CNN reported correctly that SCOTUS found the Commerce Clause does not support mandatory insurance. That part was fine, that part is news. From that CNN concluded that SCOTUS had ruled against Obamacare. That part is opinion. They should have had an on hand “expert” to interview and give his/her opinion what the ruling meant. Maybe taking time well spent, CNN would have noticed there was another part of the ruling vis-a-vis taxes and fees.

That’s the problem with news nowadays and why people are so turned off. It is the confusion in reporting real facts, substituting opinions, jokes, puns and catchy lines from affable and friendly anchors and reporters, with only air between their two ears and an inability to write their own copy.

For real reporting reference Cronkite, Huntley, Brinkley, McNeil, Lehrer. Watch an old clip and see the difference