A headline in The Australian read, "Will Smith sees the good in Hitler."

And on Dec. 27, Scotland's premier newspaper, The Scotsman, reported -- even after Smith's clarification -- "Last week, however, the warm feeling for Smith turned distinctly chilly. In an interview with the Daily Record, he was quoted as saying Adolf Hitler had just been trying to do good."

Smith reacted to what he correctly called "an awful and disgusting lie" and denounced Hitler as "a vile, heinous vicious killer responsible for one of the greatest acts of evil committed on this planet." At that point, Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, announced, "We welcome and accept Will Smith's statement that Hitler was a 'vicious killer' and that he did not mean for his remarks about the Nazi leader to be mistaken as praise." That was good and necessary. But, like the irresponsible blogs, the ADL leader characterized Smith's original statement this way: "Unfortunately, in citing Hitler in what appears to be a positive context, Smith stirred up a hornet's nest on the Internet, where hate groups and anti-Semites latched on to the remark and praised it."

But Will Smith never cited Hitler in "a positive context," and Foxman should never have said that Smith did. By doing so, Foxman preserved the original lie. A group dedicated to opposing defamation should have opposed the defamation of Will Smith, not subtly contributed to it.

What is to be learned? The lessons are simple:

1. Don't trust a Web site that doesn't cite a reputable source for a news item (opinions columns have different standards).

2. Then, check that source.

3. Don't trust headlines in newspapers -- read the entire column.

4. When a person is quoted, read his original statement in context.

In the meantime, however, millions of people around the world will continue to believe the lie that Will Smith said that Hitler was a good man.

And the media will, apparently, pay no price.