Information, often conflicting, and always incomplete, comes in slowly, from different sources with different (and unknown) degrees of reliability. It takes time to evaluate, confirm, compare, interpret. This isn't just a media problem, it is a major issue in military intelligence, in fact, in intelligence work of any kind.

Agents on scene are in the middle of the action, but often have their hands full and can only see a tiny bit of it. Back at Headquarters, the data flows in and a big picture slowly forms, it is fuzzy and out of focus, but they still have to make sense of it and they are always behind and under pressure to do SOMETHING.

And of course, the enemy is doing everything he can to confuse and mislead you, and even if he isn't, you have to assume he is and act accordingly.

This phenomenon doesn't just happen in a fast-breaking event, either. Historians are aware of this process working on very long time scales, as subsequent eras re-evaluate the record and interpret it using the filters of their own experience and knowledge, and yes, their prejudices and intellectual fashions.

We like to think there is only one truth, but we cannot deny there are myriad observers and many contradictory points of view, and consensus will decide what the truth is, not what actually happened. And I am not talking about Rovian reality-crafting here, I'm talking about honest, competent observers doing their best. The ones closest to the action (in space and time) see the most detail, the ones farthest away, see the context and the motivations and fill in the blanks. They pay a price for seeing the overall design, they miss the individual direct experiences of the event.

Its easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but its hard being out there on the field, especially right after the ball is snapped. And especially if there is an enemy eager to muddy the waters and take unfair advantage of any misstep. 8)