First drafts
The rewrites can’t come faster
“NEW: Two senior U.S. law enforcement officials tell NBC News there is a growing concern in law enforcement circles that this may have been a serious attempt on the life of former President Donald Trump.”
—MSNBC, just after the shots in Pennsylvania on Saturday
If journalism is the first draft of history, the first drafts of those first drafts might never make it to the history books—deservedly so. Because first drafts are filled with typos, errors, wrong assumptions and the like. (Trust us on that.)
We remember the old farmer tooling around in his fields in southern Arkansas one winter morning in 2003. He looked up and saw what he described as a beautiful sight. Like fireworks in the sky, he recalled later. He found out a few hours later, after going into his living room and turning on the TV set, that he had watched the space shuttle Columbia break up. He watched the disaster unfold from a tractor seat before his home ever got the Internet; fortunately he wasn’t online in 2003, describing the “beautiful sight” firsthand on social media, thus inviting scorn.
The Big Bad Media is taking a whupping online (what’s new?) for the initial reports of the Trump assassination attempt. These days, national media types—especially those covering live events—are typing (and dictating) first drafts of history for all to see and critique as the event happens in front of them. And, boy, the critiques of Saturday’s first drafts are brutal.
When the rifles first sounded Saturday (the assailant’s, and the return fire by the Secret Service), the people at the scene just heard pops. So USA Today published a story minutes later: “Trump removed from stage by Secret Service after loud noises startles former president, crowd.” In a post minutes later, it said “popping noises” rattled the crowd in Pennsylvania.
CNN’s first report was that Trump had fallen down at the rally. (He was actually tackled by Secret Service.) The
Washington Post reported “loud noises” at a Trump rally.
The reporters at these outlets continually updated the story as it unfolded. They quickly determined this was an assassination attempt. And the former president had been bloodied. And a shooter had been killed. Reporters later found out that others were hurt, and one innocent was killed protecting his family. And the updates are still coming, as the press investigates the shooter and his motive(s).
But that doesn’t stop the critiques of the first headlines.
“So guns just make popping noises and are nothing to worry about? Got it,” said one post on X, as reported by Paul Farhi of The Washington Post.
Another snarky comment: “Alexa, why is American media a disgrace to the profession?”
There’s a meme going around— again, what’s new?—with several of these headlines from the first few seconds after the shooting. As if the national media were trying to get the story wrong, or even downplaying an assassination attempt of a former president of the United States. (Look at the coverage over the last few days; does anybody think the national media has been downplaying the shooting?)
Our considered editorial opinion: The press’ updates Saturday couldn’t have come any faster. And no matter what the anonymous Internet types might tell you, or share in posts, the media isn’t in a conspiracy to downplay assassination attempts during presidential campaigns.
Any news outlet worth its salt will place accuracy above speed, even if its to the chagrin of their audience. A reporter’s job is to provide all the information available at the time, and then update the story as new information rolls in — not to make assumptions without the facts. In other words: a good journalist knows it’s more important to be right than to be first.
Another considered editorial opinion: The media makes plenty of mistakes on its own. No need to help it with spurious memes and contrived accusations.