First they said he was dead; then they announced he was alive and in stable condition. Then there were reports that there were at least two accomplices---before we heard that there were none. Some reporters said he was a psychologist until they realized he was a psychiatrist. Panels of esteemed experts tried to explain the carnage by speaking about the profound emotional impact on the military of being on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan; then they said that the suspected gunman hadn't yet been deployed overseas. These gaffes were from reputable news sources as opposed to the new breed of "citizen journalists"? Doesn't it leave you wondering?

In the rush to create 24-hour coverage, many talking heads from the military, the mental health field, and the media simply got it wrong. Hypotheses and speculations were glossed over as if they were facts. Yes, there is a lot to be learned from the horrors that took place at Fort Hood that will stimulate further discussion about war, terrorism, mental disorders, guns and journalism.

But while it can be riveting, it's premature to speculate about the psyche and motivations of a killer until we have more facts. And even after all the facts are known, there may still be more questions than answers.