"Newspapers should have the slogan '85 percent of the contents are probably true,' on the front page," said one of the speakers at the We Media conference.

That remark got a cynical, knowing laugh from the audience, which was composed largely of people who work - or had worked - in the media. Reporters know how easy it is to get a quote or fact wrong, or even a whole story; most shrug the pitfalls off with the old saying that today's newspaper is tomorrow's fish wrapping.

But Richard Dreyfuss pointed out, in his talk at We Media, that the age of instant information has created the age of instant reaction. It took Elizabeth I six weeks to learn that she had been insulted by Philip of Spain, said Dreyfuss, and of course at least as long for Philip to hear her response. Today the story would be published online and reported on television nearly as soon as Philip uttered the insult. And Elizabeth would be expected to respond immediately, lest she be accused of weakness. In the age of instant communication we don't have time to think, analyze and consider long-term consequences before we act. There's too much pressure to respond immediately, or to file the story before the evening deadline. And yes, this can be pretty dangerous: "Act now, think later" is not a great method for handling international relations.

I was thinking about Dreyfuss's anecdote while following the instant reaction to this story published in Canada's National Post on Friday. According to the article, which was written by an ex-pat Iranian journalist, the Iranian parliament was considering a proposed law that would require non-Muslim citizens to wear clothes that were colour coded to identify them by religion - red for Christians, blue for  Zoroastrians...and yellow for Jews.

Everyone freaked out. Shades of Nazi Germany!

Even normally level-headed politicians like Yossi Beilin expressed instant outrage. Nobody stopped to think: Who were the sources quoted in the story? Were they credible and was there good reason to believe they had access to accurate information? How about the head of the Jewish community in Iran - did the reporter contact him for a statement? Is there a response from the Iranian government in the article? Has anyone actually read the proposed law?

Arash,  an Iranian blogger whom I respect immensely for his intellect and levelheadedness, is certainly no fan of Ahmadinejad's. He did read the proposed bill, and posted the English translation on his blog. He called the post Badges for Jews, a Hoax. Turns out that it's about mandating an Islamic style of dress in Iran, but makes no mention of minorities.

But even before he obtained and translated the proposed bill, Arash had some well-founded doubts about the story.

First, the approval for the report comes from "Iranian expatriates living in Canada". To my understanding, and with all respect to the people who have been exiled from their mother country because of the Islamic Republic policies, these people's sources of news are nothing more than an average Canadian's ones. Take me for example, I read news in Google News and the Iranian news agencies. So, I would have nothing to add to these sources. Second, the report says the law "must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect". Unfortunately, this is not exactly how the Iranian administration works. According to the law, bills passed by the parliament should be approved by the Guardian Council, a twelve-member chamber six of whom are selected by the supreme leader.

Within hours, the National Post posted a retraction of the story on its website. But by that time a whole lot of important people and organizations, including the White House, had made some pretty heated statements.

Given that Ahmadinejad has been making a total ass out of himself over the past year, with widely quoted statements that call for Israel to be wiped from the map and several denials of the Holocaust, it's easy to understand why most people were willing to accept the veracity of Friday's story.

But that's an explanation, not a justification.

Now I'm wondering how many people have heard that the story was false, and how many are still walking around believing it's true. I suspect there are more of the latter than the former.

So okay, 15 percent of what's reported in the daily newspapers is probably inaccurate. The problem is, how do we know which stories are false? The answer is, there's no way of knowing - at least not right away. So it might be a good idea to think a little before opining and reacting.

And here's a little confession: The truth is that I've known since Friday afternoon that the story was false, but I didn't bother to blog about it because I just didn't think it was that important. Then I read Judy's post and I realised that I've become a bit too world weary lately. And that's dangerous, too.