We Want Media

Two of the biggest stories of the month landed on opposite ends of the spectrum: a national security issue that wrapped up the President and the Pulitzer, and a sensational sexual abuse scandal at one of the nation's top universities. But for as much as the two diverged in terms of content, they come together to highlight the media's apparent need to jump the gun to push a story.

Mary McCarthy was fired from the CIA (if being dismissed after retiring can be considered a firing) for what the agency calls "unauthorized contacts with the media." But before that statement could even be made, news outlets were running with the idea that McCarthy was behind Dana Priest's award-winning series.

One problem: McCarthy denies having leaked information to Priest. And in the wake of that denial, many are revisiting Priest's series and confirming that even if McCarthy did speak to Priest, she would be one of the lower-ranking of likely dozens of sources.

Meanwhile, perhaps no story has dominated the recent world of punditry than the Duke lacrosse scandal. For the past month, commentators have weighed in on seemingly every underlying aspect of the allegations, from whether athletes are above the law to the master/slave relationship.

One problem: preliminary DNA tests came back without matches, and the accused players are claiming some seemingly tight alibis. In the wake of these issues, many news outlets are now reminding readers, viewers and listeners of the presumption of innoncence in this country. But while reporters can point to an "alleged" here and there, it's clear that if there were a presumption of innocence, the story would not have had (indeed, could not have had) the daily coverage it garnered.

Why is it that we seem to always do this? We take the sensational tack first, ride it until it cannot be sustained, and only then go back to being responsible? Why must we shoot for the big story first, and good journalism second?

The answer is obvious. But that doesn't make it any less upsetting.