It’s better to be right than first.

That’s one of journalism’s easily said, not-so-easily followed credos.

In markets with multiple media outlets, the pressure is high to be the first to get news out, so you can become the go-to source for readers, listeners, or viewers. That pressure doubled with the advent of the internet and the ability of every radio station, TV network, newspaper and average Joe to publish instantly.

But, just like anyone else doing anything else, journalists rushing to break news are more prone to mistakes.

Perhaps the most high-profile example of that in recent years happened in 2012, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Affordable Care Act’s requirement that Americans buy health insurance.

It was one of the most closely watched cases at the court in years, with reporters camped outside, waiting for news of the justices’ decision. And, when it finally came, TV channels and websites all across America started screaming that the court had rejected the law.

TV channels and websites all across America were wrong.

The court had opened its written opinion by rejecting the argument from President Barack Obama’s administration that the law was legal under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. Reporters everywhere had scooped up the opinion, read that part, and reported it, trying to be the first to inform the nation that the president’s signature legislative accomplishment was null and void.

But, later in the opinion, the justices said the individual mandate was allowable under Congress’ taxation powers, and the law could stand. I think SCOTUSblog, an online news outlet dedicated to covering the court, was the only outlet to take the time to read the opinion through and post accurate information the first time.

All the other outlets had to correct their earlier reports.

Breaking news is an important part of journalism.

And it’s not just a selfish endeavor, not just media outlets trying to get a scoop. Posting information quickly can be an important community service.

If there’s a gunman on the loose in a neighborhood, or a car crash has closed a highway, media outlets can often spread that information more quickly and broadly than the police and fire agencies, who are busy dealing with the emergency itself. That helps the public know to avoid the area.

In addition to emergencies, sometimes there are issues in which there’s extreme public interest, where the whole community is waiting for information. In the absence of information, misinformation tends to fill the void. In such cases, a fast post can help clear things up before inaccuracies become too entrenched.

When those types of things happen, it increases the pressure to publish quickly. You want to give readers as much information as you can as quickly as you can.

But you don’t want to ignore your best practices. You only publish what you can confirm. You check your facts.

You want to avoid the Affordable Care Act/Supreme Court scenario.

The result is that often, in breaking news situations, stories that are not yet complete are published online.

We’re giving readers the basics, what we know when we know it, so they can at least be informed that something’s going on while we keep working the phones, calling our sources, trying to flesh out the story.

There have been times in my career I’ve published a single sentence to the Web — “Police are on the scene of a reported shooting in the 400 block of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard,” or something along those lines — so readers knew to be wary of that area while I drove out to the scene to get more facts.

We update the story as we go, adding more detail as we learn and confirm more bits of information, until we have the most complete story we can get for the next morning’s paper.

That’s why you may see a story online that says “check back for updates” at the bottom. It means we’re working on it, but we want to give you what we know so far.

Not every story is worth that treatment. The ideal thing is to only publish complete stories, so readers have all of the background and context they need to make well-informed decisions.

When news breaks, we talk about whether public safety is an issue and we try to gauge the level of public interest to decide if a story needs to go live immediately or it can wait for more detail.

Yes, whether the TV station might go live with a story before us is part of the calculation, but that’s a relatively small part. I have held back on stories others have published because I didn’t think it was right to go live without more context.

It’s a judgement call, but giving readers what they need to know is the overriding principle.

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