The first draft of history

I'm an editor, and I've screwed up. I've misspelled names, run the wrong names, gotten basic facts wrong and more. I've had to come to peace with the fact that every single magazine I put out - no matter how much time I spend on it, no matter how many people I ask to proof it - will have something (hopefully tiny and un-noticeable to the average reader) wrong with it. Human beings will always miss something.

There's this saying that journalism is the first draft of history, and that's absolutely true. Sometimes the initial story emphasizes the aspects of the story that turn out to not be that significant, and sometimes the really signficant bit gets lost because we don't have the distance needed to properly evaluate it. Sometimes the story changes as facts emerge, and sometimes you simply have to go to press even as you know the story is still breaking. And sometimes, in the heat of the moment and operating in the dark, you print or broadcast things that later prove to be flat-out wrong.

I may've been educated as a journalist, but I work on the other side of the aisle (so to speak) now. There have been plenty of times when I've wished a reporter spent more time with a story or went with a different quote. But I can honestly say that, on those few occasions when what was reported was outright inaccurate, I've always gotten corrections. And for more of those occasions than not, I haven't had to ask for them.

That last point is important. The media get a lot of flack, some of it deserved, but on the whole they get it right more than they get it wrong. We can certainly critique the weight they give some stories and not others, or their interpretations of facts. But the facts themselves? Usually correct, once it all comes out in the wash. And reporters who do get it wrong almost always correct themselves one way or another.

Reporting on the WikiLeaks releases of classified diplomatic cables and the accusations against the site's founder, Julian Assange, has been cloudy. I have to confess that I'm still not 100 percent certain what terminology to use here just because it's so hard (as a mere blogger) to find a single source detailing exactly what's happening. Assange is accused, but not criminally charged, with raping two women. Personally, I think it's possible to separate objective reporting on both the substance of the WikiLeaks documents and the rape accusations from commentary on both of those things. Maybe I'm alone here.

That's where Keith Olbermann screwed up. In my opinion, he's allowed his emotional response to WikiLeaks to color his reporting on the leaks and the rape allegations. He retweeted a link to a story accusing one of the accusers of having CIA ties (since debunked) and which named the accusers (a journalistic no-no). Then last week he welcomed left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore onto his show to talk about the controversy. I did a post with my initial reaction, and in a sec I'm going to expand on my thoughts.

Blogger Sady Doyle launched a Twitter protest against Moore, which Olbermann promptly made all about himself, and he still won't admit that he screwed up. As Doyle wrote today, it's allowable that Olbermann made a mistake in his reporting. But you know what? Journalists make mistakes. And when they become aware of those mistakes, journalists correct themselves and apologize.

Here's a small sampling of what Olbermann did that would've gotten him a D in every journalism class I ever took from elementary school on through college:

- Asking a question that doesn't really reflect the legit opposing viewpoints on an issue, like "Are [the accusations] a ruse? Are they a front for something else?" which was Olbermann's first question to Moore. This is no different than when somebody on Fox News asks if President Obama is really a socialist or just under the remote control of martians.

- Saying "Uh-huh" when Moore repeated the falsehood that the allegations against Assange are "about a broken condom," instead of pointing out that this had already been reported as being inaccurate.

- Not inviting onto this same show a single person who might offer a legit opposing viewpoint. Yes it's true, as Christiane Amanpour has said, that there aren't two sides to a genocide. But there are sure as hell multiple sides to this issue, and Olbermann damn well knows it. For instance... a) of course it's suspicious that Sweden ignored the rape accusations against Assange until he pissed off the U.S., but that doesn't mean those accusations aren't true; b) isn't this ignoring itself problematic? etc.

And I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think it's ethical for a journalist to advocate/argue via Twitter. It's not exactly a medium that lends itself to thorough exploration of an issue. Most of the journalists I know who have Twitter accounts use them to preview stories or share personal information. To do otherwise risks making the news rather than covering it, and that's something with which I will never, ever, ever be okay. Sorry.

Not that Olbermann has ever been anything resembling objective, but reporting inaccurate information and then steadfastly refusing to apologize is a different animal.

For the record, I had a very emotional reaction to Olbermann's interview, and to what I consider his flippant attitude toward the people who've asked him to correct it. Olbermann and Moore may not be aware of this, but what they broadcast last week is exactly what every rape victim hears in her head, from people she thought were her friends and even from law enforcement. For a survivor, it was incredibly triggering to hear it coming from two men who, by virtue of their progressive cred, I thought I could trust just a little bit. Thank goodness this didn't happen two years ago when being able to write "today I washed the dishes" in my journal was a huge victory over my depression.

I'm not the only one who's written that Moore's comments and Olbermann's dismissive reaction contribute to a larger cultural atmosphere where rape victims know we'll never get even a sliver of the benefit of the doubt. But their admission that they were wrong and their apology really will go a long way to healing this problem. And, for a couple of alleged defenders of the truth, it's just the right thing to do.