The phrase is often attributed to Washington Post editor Philip Graham, but it first appeared in a 1943 book review written by Alan Barth in the New Republic: The News provides the first rough draft of history. Graham’s use of the idea appeared in 1963, when he said this:
"So let us today drudge on about our inescapably impossible task of providing every week a first rough draft of history that will never be completed about a world we can never really understand."
I recently (and by that I mean this morning) came across a Substack called “Second Rough Draft,” written by Dick Tofel, founder of Propublica, which does incredible reporting about American politics. Here’s a link to his comments on the connection between History and Journalism:
In the aftermath of 9/11, the media were manipulated by government as the Bush administration pursued the war on terror, the invasion of Iraq based on an erroneous assessment of the presence of weapons of mass destruction, and the “bandwagon to war” that was part of the nation’s spasm of response to the horror that was 9/11. The nation needed a cause, a myth, to justify the military reaction that impacted civilians in two countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) while sparing the nation, Saudi Arabia, which was actually the home of the 9/11 hijackers. The 2017 “Muslim Ban” was a natural outgrowth of the myth, and the media took a black eye over the fact that they were manipulated to create an external enemy to scapegoat for the horror that was 9/11.
I’m thinking about that this week because we are seeing what happens when the media, in their effort to create the “first rough draft” of history, are lambasted when they get it wrong. This is no different from what has always happened – as Graham noted in his comment that the draft “will never be completed” and that it tries to describe a set of events “we can never really understand. What is different now, I think, is that the “first rough draft” is often written today in a series of Twitter “takes” or posts by Instagram influencers. Social media has replaced journalism as the source of much of the information we get about world and national events, and we become stupider rather than smarter by our belief in these sources.
Responsible journalists are trained to seek out facts. Reputable news organizations don’t publish anything without at least two sources confirming what they are reporting. Bits of information attributed to anonymous sources are not anonymous to the reporter and the editors; they know who these folks are and believe them to be credible. Their identity is withheld at the request of the source, to protect them from retaliation from the people implicated in illegal actions by their information.
We are seeing this dynamic in action this week. Events in Gaza and the West Bank are shrouded in misinformation (which is inadvertently stated as facts that turn out to be wrong) and disinformation (which is intentionally false information to achieve some other goal). We are told that the Israelis bombed a hospital, and then are told later that the explosion was caused by Hamas rockets that went astray. We are told that if we sympathize with the civilian victims of Israel’s action, we are supporting terrorism. Conversely, we are also told that if we sympathize with the Israeli victims of the initial Hamas attack we are condoning genocide and an authoritarian Netanyahu. The truth is probably both of these and also neither of these.
Truth is a combination of facts and time, I think. Myths are often created by the first story we hear, and then other points of view have to compete with the myth we have already accepted. What’s important is that we practice discernment in assessing the veracity of what we are hearing. How can we do this? I think there are some things that we can do, although they all take a little more effort than simply accepting the things that we see in our social media feeds.
What is the source of the information? We have learned, for example, that the source of the first story about the attack on the hospital (the source that blamed the Israelis) was a Hamas front. Does this mean that the information was wrong? No, it just means that we need to keep an open mind to the possibility that the source was providing not only misinformation but disinformation and we need to keep evaluating what we are hearing.
Do the mainstream media back up the story? Because professional journalists are constantly querying their sources and trying to find evidence that either supports or discredits their first “take” on the event, they are more likely to have a nuanced approach to the events. Are they ever wrong? Sure. But they are likely to be providers of misinformation rather than disinformation, and they correct themselves if they get it wrong.
Does the story make sense in the context of other things you have learned? This means that you can’t come into a story about the current situation in Israel/Palestine and understand what’s going on. You have to have some background knowledge of both the situation and the people involved. You can exercise your own judgment about “what makes sense” which allows you either to accept what you’re told or to query other sources.
When reputable journalists back off from a story they originally reported, recognize that they are probably trying to get it right. The fact that they change their assessment of what happened doesn’t mean they were initially lying and are now telling the truth, or that they were initially telling the truth and are now lying. They are probably trying to be as truthful as possible, and are acknowledging that they were misled by the initial reports they received.
None of this applies to “news” organizations like Fox, or to the unmediated social media posts that do not observe any journalistic norms.
We can look at this problem further as we examine domestic political events. Earlier this week, for example, ABC News broke the story that Mark Meadows, the last chief of staff in the administration of #P01135809, was granted immunity by Jack Smith in order to get his testimony about the last chaotic days of the administration in which he served. Because I respect ABC, I am assuming that the people who reported this story had at least two sources that were deemed credible by their editors. Since then, Meadows’ attorney has commented that this story was “largely inaccurate.” Before publishing the story, ABC News had pressed the attorney to offer any information about what might have been inaccurate so that they could get the story right, but the attorney offered only “no comment” in response.
Meanwhile, #P01135809 is claiming on Truth Social that “Mark Meadows NEVER told me that allegations of significant fraud (about the RIGGED election) were baseless. He certainly didn’t say that in his book!” The second part of this is accurate; Meadows apparently told Smith’s team of prosecutors that he lied in his book as well as in previous public statements.
I am encouraged (a bit) by the statement by Meadows’ attorney. If the ABC story was totally bogus, the attorney would have said so. The fact that the attorney instead said that the story was largely inaccurate confirms that some parts of it were accurate. Now we are left with the question – how much was accurate and how much was inaccurate? Further developments will undoubtedly answer that question. We have to be ready to edit the rough draft.
Another story in the news this week also calls for deft editing of the first rough draft: the selection of Louisiana Republican Mike Johnson to the position of Speaker of the House. Depending on whose rough draft you are reading, Rep. Johnson is either a quiet backbencher elevated to the speakership because the GOP conference wanted a caretaker simply to allow the House or operate, or he is a Gym-Jordan-Without-the-Baggage who will ruthlessly pursue the MAGA GOP agenda moving forward. Some MAGA GOP representatives are crowing that he is the latter;
“If you don’t think that moving from Kevin McCarthy to MAGA Mike Johnson shows the ascendance of this movement and where the power in the Republican Party truly lies, then you’re not paying attention,” Gaetz said, referring to the ousted former House speaker.
(Matt Gaetz to Steve Bannon, Wednesday, October 25)
We can look back at the failures of the mainstream media to accurately cover important events. In 2016, for example, mainstream media were influenced by the ratings drawn by #P01135809, regularly platforming his outrageous antics as he pursued the fundamentally serious job of the presidency of the United States. By platforming him, they gave him oxygen, and he won. Most of the reputable journalists are attempting to do better this time around. But there’s a problem; in 2016, they wrote the first rough draft of this era in American politics, and millions of Americans are loath to accept that rough drafts require editing. They have accepted the myth, and, like all myths, that myth has become more powerful than any effort to edit it.
Any writer knows that it is easy to write the first draft and much more difficult to edit it (or accept an editor’s suggestions) because in the course of writing you fall in love with your own words. Editing feels like amputation without anesthesia. But you know that your final product will be much improved over your rough draft.
The public also objects to having their view of reality “edited” by subsequent contributors to the narrative. The public doesn’t like what they call “revisionist history,” because the editing of their past challenges the mythology that comforts them. They don’t like to admit that they’re wrong. No one does. But good policy demands that decision-makers change their opinions when they are faced with the blunt reality that they were wrong.
I’m thinking this morning of Democratic Representative Jared Golden of Maine who reversed course over the past 24 hours after the most recent mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine. After voting against several pieces of legislation that would have banned certain semi-automatic weapons – including one bill that passed the House after mass shootings in Uvalde, Buffalo, and Highland Park, Illinois. This is what Golden said in his statement last night:
"I have opposed efforts to ban deadly weapons of war, like the assault rifle used to carry out this crime . . . . The time has now come for me to take responsibility for this failure, which is why I now call on the United States Congress to ban assault rifles like the one used by the sick perpetrator of this mass killing in my hometown of Lewiston, Maine."
He added:
"For the good of my community, I will work with any colleague to get this done in the time that I have left in Congress."
He also asked for forgiveness for his previous opposition to gun control measures:
"To the people of Lewiston, my constituents throughout the 2nd District, to the families who lost loved ones, and to those who have been harmed, I ask for forgiveness and support as I seek to put an end to these terrible shootings."
He will undoubtedly face accusations of hypocrisy or political opportunism; because he thinks that his earlier stance against weapons control will now work against him, critics will claim, he has to switch his position in order to win the next election. That may be true, but it doesn’t change the fact that he has decided to face these accusations and change a very publicly held position. Challengers from the right and from the left will now pummel him.
Others of us, whose opinions are much less public than Rep. Golden’s, should be willing to edit our opinions as the foundational rough draft of our personal mythology is undergoing editing.
Last week, I listened to an episode of Pod Save America in which the hosts interviewed Rachel Maddow about her newest book, Prequel, in which she wrote about the rise of fascism in America that was happening in the 1930s and 1940s, at the same time the set of ideas was gaining traction in Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Franco’s Spain. As part of their discussion, they talked about the evidence of burgeoning fascism you would look for in a democratic nation that was showing fascist tendencies. One of the things you look for, Rachel said, was criticizing and demonizing expertise – including professional journalism – and calling on people not to believe what they see in the mainstream media but rather to trust the authoritarian leader to tell them the truth. Here’s a link to this episode; Rachel’s segment starts at 54:09 in the episode, and her discussion of the ingredients needed for the rise of fascism starts at the 57-minute mark.
I enjoy your take on pretty much any topic, but this even more than usual. Lots in here to mull over.
This is a terrific piece among terrific pieces. Several threads to pull and I want to pull them. Eventually, you'll hear me yammer on about some points soon.