The blogosphere and on op-ed pages are full of thoughtful commentary on whether or not we should blame to Nidal Hasan for the Fort Hood incident, example Megan McArdle, David Brooks, and John Podhoretz.  Is he crazy, evil, or part of the mass insanity of radical Islamism? Is he Dylan Klebold or is he a suicide bomber?

The traditional Media and Politics textbooks describe three stages to media coverage of crises. The first stage is when everybody rushes to get the initial facts. The reporting tends to be quick, off the cuff, and not always correct. The second stage is when they sort out the facts, ie how many people died and who did it, and they get reactions from important officials. The third stage is the big lessons stage. Reporters and pundits seek to put a framework of meaning around the horror. They frame the incident in terms of gun control or insanity or world politics. Then they make policy recommendations.

The rise of new media has screwed up those neat stages and wrecked havoc with the media textbooks, which haven't yet been amended. Even before the media arrives at the scene of the disaster, eye-witnesses are posting pictures of events from the cell phones on Facebook or twittering events. It's stage 1/2. In order to compete with arm chair pundits, like myself, they run to stage three. There is a rush to find meaning even before the facts are in.

We've got to slow down.