SCOTUS blog, CNN and hostile media bias

In an age of growing cynicism towards the media, to the point psychologist are now extensively studying the hostile media bias, something interesting happened. According to their official Twitter stream, the SCOTUS blog got 3 million hits at 1:11pm on the day of the decisions about the health care in the United States.
For those who don’t know it, SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States, and has no connection to neither Johannes Scotus Eriugena nor John Duns Scotus. So, SCOTUS the American was doing a Twitter and live blog coverage of the decision taken on one of the hottest topics in the United States politics. While this happened, the CNN (which is one of the biggest news networks) diffused a false breaking news.
It was a matter of misunderstanding between the reporter inside and the reporter outside of the courtroom, though it is not a small deal anyway, and especially not for such a big network with a high reputation within and outside the United States. This mistake shows us the way news work now, as live coverages are what people expect and missing the assist like a German football player at Euro 2012 will cost the network a lot of money a commoner cannot imagine, as the traffic will be directed to other sources. If television (like the CNN) gets in the way, trying to keep up for the Twitter executives in the heart of the storm, it gets to these results. They didn’t wait for the complete opinion before reporting, reported it before all the others, including SCOTUS blog and their Twitter and live blog coverage.
This is clearly a big damage to the CNN reputation as a news network, and it only adds to the biased way the public receives the news.
The hostile media bias is not about distrust in the ability of news networks to give proper information; however, it is evidently connected. How can you trust the news won’t be twisted to promote a specific position (which is what the hostile media bias is about, as it’s about the perception people have of the news as against or pro them based on factors like knowing the network or the position of the journalist) when you know for sure journalists don’t wait long enough to have correct fact before reporting them? It is a matter of ethics, and where there lacks ethics, you expect the lack in all possible circumstances.