"Many journalists apparently believe that since they are writing the “first rough draft of history” and doing it under deadline pressure, it should be expected that some errors, misunderstandings and misinterpretations will occur; that historians eventually will sort it out...But the public sees it quite another way. They say they understand that reporters have to work very hard and fast under pressure...But they do not believe this should exempt the newspaper from cleaning up its messes promptly and fully.Seeing as many errors as they do, the public would like to see many more corrections and clarifications" (Haiman, 17).
I can definitely see where both sides are coming from here. However, I don't agree with the attitude that some journalists have concerning the "first rough draft of history." The wording seems to imply that they believe they are better and should not be challenged to to write well and perfectly since they are already doing such hard work. But, reporting news is just as important as finding things out. The public has a right to read and hear the news nearly error-free. The news affects the public, and if if they are misinformed, then the affect is altered, which can sometimes be serious. Journalists do work very hard to find out the news, and their aim is to get the truth, so shouldn't they want to report the truth mainly without errors? I don't think it's a huge deal if there are some grammatical errors; those are pretty much the only errors that should be there. The content should be error-free.