Faux Controversy Over Palin's Bracelet Shows Value Of Reporting Before Blogging

Forgive me for climbing on to my high horse for a moment.

Over at Memeorandum right now, the top section is about the "controversy" over a bracelet worn by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

It seems that Yale University student Eric Robinson wrote a column yesterday attacking the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee for wearing what he thought was a black bracelet that is meant to honor soldiers killed in action. Robinson (a veteran) was offended because, he wrote, the name on the bracelet is that of Palin's son Track — who served in Iraq, but is very much alive.

"Commemorating Track's service by wearing a black memorial bracelet which is reserved for those dead or even a red bracelet for those missing in action, demonstrates a horrifying contempt for those who gave their last full measure of devotion or an almost unbelievable ignorance of the importance of symbols in American history," Robinson opined.

His column caught the attention of some big liberal blogs, like Crooks and Liars, who jumped on the story.

Well, as Robinson now concedes in an "authors note":

Sarah Palin's bracelet was not black; instead, it was a dark brown "DeployedHero" bracelet worn by those who have loved ones currently serving in the military. The bracelet is different from the black one associated with men and women who are killed in action overseas. Recognizing this, I apologize to the governor and to any reader who might have been misled by my piece. I hope that this serves as an important lesson for anyone interested in the importance of these symbols.

Crooks and Liars also admits it "should have fact-checked more closely" — in part because the company that makes the bracelets says it has given them to both Palin and Vice President Joe Biden (his son was also deployed).

Now, here I come on my high horse:

This is why it's important to check things out — a concept that many in the blogosphere don't seem to understand. I know we're not perfect here at The Two-Way. We make mistakes and sometimes rush to post. But we try to only say what we know, point to sources that can be trusted and have done their homework, and fess up when we mess up.

Sometimes, commenters say we're not moving fast enough to point to what others are reporting. We're accused of ignoring the news.

This kind of "controversy" reinforces why some of us old folks do things the way we do.

It also underscores why it's important to read everyone's reporting (ours included) with a skeptical eye.

I'll climb down now.

Thanks for listening.