This, from a local Fox affiliate, may be the worst one I’ve come across (Update: actually, have a look at this video lower down in the post):

Reporting that President Obama has been killed instead of Bin Laden? Yeah, pretty bad. Then there’s this tweet from MSNBC correspondent Norah O’Donnell (thanks, Mallary!):

Gizmodo also has examples from the BBC and a different Fox affiliate than the one featured above. The Fox station later posted a story about all of the Obama/Osama mixups. It mentioned the other Fox affiliate as well as errors from CNN, the Modesto Bee, ABC News and Fox News. And after all of that, they admitted their mistake:

FOX40 also briefly had a graphic up with the wrong name. The original graphic talked about “OBAMA NATIONAL SECURITY ANNOUNCEMENT” and the B remained when it was changed to “OSAMA BIN LADEN.” Station management apologized for the error, as did the network anchors.

What else? Here’s a CNN typo talking about “Obama’s compound” in Pakistan:

Sky News declaring Obama’s death:

Update May 2: Here’s an example from NPR (thanks, Parker!):

Update May 3: A correction from the Charlotte Observer:

A front-page story in some editions Monday incorrectly referred to Osama bin Laden as Obama. In the same story, a photograph cutline wrongly said two aircraft hit the same tower of the World Trade Center. The planes hit different towers. Link

Update May 4: The South China Morning Post published this incorrect correction today:

In a headline on page A2 yesterday, the US president’s first name was erroneously given instead of that of Osama bin Laden. We apologise for the error.

Why is it incorrect? Because the paper made an Obama/Osama error — and that involves the US president’s last name.

Update #2: Huffington Post put together a great video compilation of all the on air flubs:

This may in fact be the worst on air Obama/Osama mixup of all. As New York magazine noted in its headline, “News Anchor Made ‘Osama’/‘Obama’ Gaffe Three Times in Seventeen Seconds.” Part of it is included in the above HuffPo compilation, but this is the full version. From Global TV in Canada

Update May 5: Yet another correction from the Charlotte Observer:

In some editions Wednesday, a front page story about tensions between the U.S. and Pakistani governments incorrectly referred to Osama bin Laden as Obama.

Update May 8: A May 6 correction from the Guardian:

An article meant to name Osama bin Laden, but instead said: “Asked on Wednesday whether the team that killed Obama had come under fire, (Jay) Carney said the White House had gone to the limit in providing details and that any more would risk future operations” (Photos reveal gruesome aftermath of Bin Laden raid, 5 May, page 9 turn from page 1, early editions). Link

Update May 11: From the Sacramento Bee:

A Washington Post story on Page A12 on May 2 and a McClatchy Newspapers Washington Bureau story on Page A13 on May 6 mistakenly used the name Obama instead of Osama in references to Osama bin Laden. Link

Then, last week, Fox News had to apologize again for doing the same thing. This time it used old footage of Sarah Palin from last year’s presidential campaign while covering her current book tour. In both cases, the older footage made the crowds seem much larger than they actually were. Here’s the on air apology:

And while we’re on the topic of Palin-related apologies, MSNBC also issued an on air sorry after it used Photoshopped pics of the former governor during a segment:

Editor’s Note: Sorry for coming late to this. I meant to schedule this post for Friday, but neglected do so.

Update Nov. 23: Now it appears as though my timing was good. Fishbowl DC today got it hands on an internal Fox News memo that outlines a “zero tolerance” policy regarding “on-screen errors.” This includes a range of disciplinary actions that management will take against “those who played significant roles in the ‘mistake chain,’ and those who supervise them.” The full memo is below.

One positive aspect of the memo is that it’s not solely about punishing people who make mistakes. In order to try and reduce errors, the channel will “start by going to air with only the most essential, basic, and manageable elements.” Trying to simplify things is a good approach; Fox News should also examine the processes currently used to put elements on the air, and figure out how it can improve them.

Subject: Quality Control

We had a mistake on Newsroom today when a wrong book cover went on screen during a guest segment, the kind of thing that can fall through the cracks on any day with any story given the large amount of elements and editorial we run through our broadcasts. Unfortunately, it is the latest in a series of mistakes on FNC in recent months. We have to all improve our performance in terms of ensuring error-free broadcasts. To that end, there was a meeting this afternoon between senior managers and the folks who run the daytime shows in which expectations were reviewed, and the following results were announced:‪ Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors. Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the “mistake chain,” and those who supervise them. That may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews. So we now face a great opportunity to review and improve on our workflow and quality control efforts. To make the most of that opportunity, effective immediately, Newsroom is going to “zero base” our newscast production. That means we will start by going to air with only the most essential, basic, and manageable elements. To share a key quote from today’s meeting: “It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on.” We may then build up again slowly as deadlines and workloads allow so that we can be sure we can quality check everything before it makes air, and we never having to explain, retract, qualify or apologize again. Please know that jobs are on the line here. I can not stress that enough. I will review again during our Monday editorial meeting, and in the days and weeks ahead. This experience should make us stronger editorially, and I encourage everyone to invest themselves one hundred and ten percent in this effort.

News Cycle reports that the transcript has been corrected.

It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.
Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.
Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.
And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.
Now a pair of obscure filmmakers say they created Martin Eisenstadt to help them pitch a TV show based on the character. But under the circumstances, why should anyone believe a word they say?
“That’s a really good question,” one of the two, Eitan Gorlin, said with a laugh . . .

They say the blame lies not with them but with shoddiness in the traditional news media and especially the blogosphere.
“With the 24-hour news cycle they rush into anything they can find,” said Mr. Mirvish, 40.
Mr. Gorlin, 39, argued that Eisenstadt was no more of a joke than half the bloggers or political commentators on the Internet or television.
An MSNBC spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, explained the network’s misstep by saying someone in the newsroom received the Palin item in an e-mail message from a colleague and assumed it had been checked out. “It had not been vetted,” he said. “It should not have made air.”
But most of Eisenstadt’s victims have been bloggers, a reflection of the sloppy speed at which any tidbit, no matter how specious, can bounce around the Internet. And they fell for the fake material despite ample warnings online about Eisenstadt, including the work of one blogger who spent months chasing the illusion around cyberspace, trying to debunk it.