Slate ran a useful piece this week looking at all the mistakes the press made in its reporting on the Mumbai massacre. Inconsistencies involved the nationalities of the killers (some were British citizens?), the planning of the assault (did the attackers visit Mumbai to spy?), and the targets of the attacks (Americans and Brits, Mumbai's luxury hotels, or anyone and everyone?). The author even takes issue with the fact that multiple publications provided different spellings of the lone remaining gunman Kasab.
The thrust of the article is that newspapers and networks should at least "warn readers of the provisional nature of their hot breaking reports."
When a crisis strikes would you rather get information quickly and do the fact-checking yourself, or do you want the outlets to remind you that they're not 100 percent sure about their reports?