^No reason why inconsistencies should ruin anything. It's fiction, after all. Every bit of it is just pretend, so it's not so horrible if you pretend that some earlier part happened differently than you pretended before. Sure, consistency is nice to have, but it's not the sole, exclusive priority of fiction.
And it's not like the makers of M*A*S*H had any idea that their show about a 3-year war would run for 11 seasons. Eventually they had no choice but to play fast and loose with continuity and chronology.
But I'm not talking about internal consistency here. What I'm saying is that, whatever Roberto Orci might say about the comics being "close to canon," he also quite explicitly says that they are not part of the canon, so whatever they establish should be treated as less authoritative than what's onscreen. In Lucasfilm terms, they're "secondary canon" at best.
Exactly my point. Inconsistencies shouldn't ruin anything. "M*A*S*H" was a brilliant show, and Trek ain't so bad, either. Anything can be picked to death for inconsistencies and errors and in doing so its great entertainment value is lost (unless there's entertainment in picking it to death). Nothing is meant to stand up to the scrutiny some give Trek. It wasn't really created for that.
I honestly don't know why anyone should take Trek canon more seriously than Roddenberry, himself did. Or more seriously than anyone else who has been associated with Trek in a production role has, for that matter.
Parenthetically, I don't even want to begin to try to fathom what "secondary canon" is.