Let’s start this column with a crystal-clear disclaimer: If BuzzFeed was dead wrong about its explosive story last week that President Donald Trump had ordered his former attorney to lie to Congress, then the news site should retract its story and its mistake has done a great disservice to journalism and to this country.

But the dispute over that story offers a fresh example of an old history lesson in journalism: Sometimes being wrong doesn’t mean you’re wrong.

First, some quick background: In November, Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow while Trump was running for president. On Jan. 18, BuzzFeed, citing unnamed federal law enforcement officials, reported that investigators had evidence – including Trump Organization documents – showing Trump had directed Cohen to lie.

No other news outlets could corroborate the story, but they reported widely on the reaction of Democrats, who said suborning perjury would be an impeachable offense. The Dems called on Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor investigating alleged Trump campaign collusion with Russia, to give any evidence of such to Congress so it could act.

Instead, Mueller’s office – typically tight-lipped about its work – issued a rare public comment that said BuzzFeed’s “description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate.”

Trump and many of his defenders pounced on Mueller’s statement as evidence that the BuzzFeed story was “fake news.” Several pundits said the mere fact that the normally silent Mueller issued a statement meant BuzzFeed’s story was wrong on its face.

Not necessarily.

Now, of course, blockbuster stories can and have been proven false.

Sometimes, sources or wrong or not fully vetted or reporters have a blind spot for their fallibility, as happened when the New York Times’ Judith Miller wrote a series of (later proven inaccurate) stories saying Iraq had weapons of mass destruction during the George W. Bush administration.

And bad journalists have made things up out of whole cloth. The most famous example is probably Stephen Glass, who fabricated all or part of several stories for The New Republic.

But — and another big caveat, here: I have no idea if this is the case with BuzzFeed’s story — sometimes you can be wrong on the minutiae but spot-on where it counts.

I point you to the climactic scenes of “All the President’s Men,” the true story of the Washington Post’s investigation into Watergate. Near the end of that film, reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein publish a story saying Bob Haldeman, President Richard Nixon’s chief of staff, was one of several people to control a secret slush fund used to spy on Democrats.

It was the biggest of all the big stories the reporters had uncovered, because it put the scandal directly in the West Wing.

But it was also their first story that didn’t receive the classic “non-denial denial” from the White House. Instead, it got a firm rebuke from not only the president but also from Hugh Sloan, the former Nixon campaign treasurer who was one of their sources for the story.

Much like BuzzFeed is now, the Washington Post stood by its story. And further reporting revealed Woodward and Bernstein were right about Haldeman – he would serve 18 months in prison for perjury, conspiracy and obstruction of justice – but they were wrong about investigators’ record of that information. The Post had reported that Sloan told a grand jury about Haldeman’s role in the slush fund, when, in fact, Sloan had been prepared to tell jurors about Haldeman but was never asked.

History proved Woodward and Bernstein right in the grander scheme, though they were wrong about some specifics.

BuzzFeed is obviously wrong about something, because it’s unlikely Mueller would have spoken out otherwise (though he may have his own reasons for wanting to cool the Democrats’ demand that he start handing over evidence).

But perhaps they’re wrong about specifics – maybe the documents aren’t exactly what they described, or maybe Mueller isn’t ready to reach the same conclusions as BuzzFeed’s sources about the content of those documents – but BuzzFeed’s story may be right, in the grander scheme.

Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, left open the possibility that Trump talked to Cohen before Cohen testified before Congress (“So what” if he did, the attorney said, before then saying he definitely didn’t).

As I’ve said in this space before, journalism is the first draft of history. Stories, especially big ones, are going through constant updates, revisions, clarifications and rewrites as new information becomes available. Some stories are proven false or changed as more reporters uncover more information, while others are proven right.

As of this writing, Mueller is saying nothing more and BuzzFeed’s folks say their sources tell them to stand firm, that they’ll be proven right in the end.

History will let us know.

One final important thing: We’ll learn what history has to say from a reporter.

The errors of one journalist or newspaper do not prove that all journalists and newspapers are wrong.

It was another journalist at another magazine that uncovered Glass’s fabrications. And newspapers across America — including this one — carried front-page stories about Mueller’s statement on the BuzzFeed story.

If there’s one thing reporters love as much as uncovering a scandal, it’s proving a competitor’s scoop wrong.

Justin A. Hinkley can be reached at 989-358-5686 or jhinkley@thealpenanews.com. Follow him on Twitter @JustinHinkley.