Do Your Job

Going into this project I was very much inclined to support Philips and give him the benefit of the doubt.

I can’t make that claim any longer.

While no amount of analysis and research will ever give us the entire truth surrounding the mistakes that Philips and the LA Times made in publishing this story the fact remains they did publish it and it was filled with many mistakes.

Within the Hip Hop community you hear lots of rumors and they are written off as just that – rumors. For someone who isn’t inside this scene I can see where you might hear things and want to run with them. But if you are going to be reporting something as fact, you need to find the facts.

As this story progressed on Philips desk, I feel like he should have been questioning the legitimacy of Sabatino. That, in my mind, is the story they could have run with and produced a great article.

As it stands Philips trusted sources and documents that he flat out should not have. Regardless of his track record he messed up. While the quick admittance and apology is nice it doesn’t undo the error.

If journalists are going to maintain any level of credibility with the public scenarios like this have to be eliminated. Yes I know mistakes happen, and if this were a simple case of a writer messing up I could probably forgive him.

But it wasn’t.

As I have outlined over the course of this blog, the evidence was their to at least raise red flags and, as it turned out, those flags would have led to some more serious realizations about the supposed “facts” of the story.

The Hip Hop community knew it immediately, the editor for the Smoking Gun new something was up and his reporters did their homework – something Philips ignored.

But did he ignore the process of researching the facts or did he ignore facts he found so as to put out a sensationalized story?

Neither option is too appealing, but a procedural step that was missed is something that can be reiterated as a must during the reporting.

And if it’s the latter, Philips will be another journalist responsible for furthering the publics continual distrust in the media.

Anonymous Sources?

As we have broken down the facts and analyzed the mistakes and possible repercussions of Philips articles the question, for me, that still lingers is his use of anonymous sources.

“Anonymous sources are a problem in journalism,” said Don Smith, interactivity editor at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Smith made several points about the need for journalists to maintain their degree of separation from an event and the need for reporters to admit when they are basing their story on hearsay.

Philips claims that he checks his sources information multiple times and won’t “write it just because some says it.” If this is how he conducts himself, how did he make such blatant errors in the story?

In an email response to a request for an interview he told me that “A lot of peculiar things happened before and after the story broke.” He wouldn’t get more in depth with me, but for someone who has the experience he has the oversight here is outstanding.

In an interview with Hip Hop DX, an online Hip Hop news magazine, prior to the revelation that the documents were forged Philips said they “came up on those documents later after I was pretty much sure of what happened.”

I continually see these contradictions as evidence that he rushed into this story without as much thought as should be given to such a serious topic. The story was, in large part, false! It was proven to be just over a week after it’s publication. How could he have been confident in his reporting and the “facts” prior to the documents when the documents were the basis for the entire story?

Even if he was, where was that reporting in the article? Continuously he refers to the documents and unnamed FBI informants. Did he seek to confirm the documents with a third party completely separate from his source for them? These are questions I hope have been addressed by the LA Times internal investigation and I hope the answers are made public.

As Smith pointed out to me, the use of anonymous sources is often for gaining information you can then take to another party and confirm your assumptions – on the record. There is no on the record confirmation of any of Philips claims, just his "reporting" and that of this “informant.”

Philips has made the point that he is dealing with criminals and he can’t divulge anything about his contacts as their lives may then be in danger. In dealing with criminals you have to consider their motive for saying anything. This isn’t to say you can’t believe them, but you should take extra steps to ensure they are factual. In this case it doesn’t appear as though he even took the most basic steps.

The Hip Hop Perspective

As the Hip Hop world tried to make sense of what turned out to be one big mess for the LA Times, it also meant that the bloggers of the Hip Hop scene (cause you know they are the gate keepers now) had to throw their two cents in… and did they have some things to say.

While XXL rapidly goes down the drains thanks to the mysterious removal of Elliott Wilson, they have a pretty solid website and an even stronger group of bloggers. While I’m an infrequent visitor (Cut my man loose and I had to let y’all go) both Jay Smooth and Byron Crawford had some great insight.

Crawford is a funny guy and his writing lends itself well to the blog scene. He is admittedly a Biggie stan (read: big fan) and I’m not sure if his jibs at ‘Pac are serious or just a ploy to help spur conversation and debate with his audience - I’m guessing they are the latter. Either way he raises some great points as to the legitimacy of the article.

He calls Philips out for using an unnamed FBI informant as his only evidence of anything and makes the point that “For all we know, this could just be some jail house snitch looking for time off of his sentence.”

Can you say Sabatino?

Sure Crawford writes with a sense of flagrant disregard for his subjects but that is the element that draws people into blogs and keeps them continually coming back. You have to give your audience a personality they can interact with take, which often means pushing the boundaries and (gasp!) perhaps offending, or else you won’t see any conversation within the comment box. The test of a good blogger is than to see if while maintaining a persona they still report.

In Crawford’s case he addresses Philips accusations using his own knowledge of Hip Hop history (and the business) to pull out the problems of the article. The best part is he wasn’t responding to the Smoking Gun’s report that the article was flawed – he published his thoughts the day Philips story broke, placing him ahead of almost everyone who doubted the stories validity.

Jay Smooth attacked the article and the errors once it broke that Philips used forged documents and probably should have questioned the accuracy of his “anonymous” source. But Smooth didn’t write - he made a video report. By mixing his Hip Hop swagger with some comedy and his own unconvential methods of reporting (admits he never went to journlaism school) he provides some excellent content and has a message for Mr. Philips at the end.



I have to second Smooths request that Chuck Philips leaves Hip Hop alone and lets those of us who know this culture speak on it. As tempting as it may be to investigate the activities within the Hip Hop scene it’s a tight knit community and more often than not when someone from the outside steps in they fall on their face – and today the bloggers are their to call ‘em out on their BS.

The Mystery Man

So the LA Times was duped?

I'm not sure I buy it, but we can run with it for the moment. The question is who is this character that was at the center of Philips story?

Jimmy Sabatino.

A simple Google search will give you this in depth account of who he is and what his past activities have included.

In short he is a con man. Or should we say con kid as he perpetrated most of his crimes as a teenager and saw his imagined world crumbling by his 22nd birthday.

How did this young man pull of his cons? I couldn’t have written a better answer myself, so I’ll leave it to Robert Andrew Powell, the man responsible for the above story:

"He simply asks for things, and people simply give them to him.”

The question remains, how did this kid insinuate himself into a shooting of 2Pac and how did a reporter, Philips, miss the fact that he has a long history of lying to achieve his goals?

Within the Hip Hop industry you hear talk constantly and usually it’s all just rumors. Trusting whatever someone is telling you is about as foolish as believing that executive tell you he is going to make you the next star. Seeing is believing. Talk is cheap.

Sabatino claims he attended the 1995 Grammy awards with Biggie? Really, how is it that someone rolling with possibly the greatest rapper of all time has never been heard of by anyone in this business? His name has never appeared anywhere in any relation to activities within the scene – and as big as it may seem, it isn't that big at all, someone would be shouting this kid out or calling him out for the lame that he is.

Even to his credit he could have been trying to get his music industry hustle on – but who wasn’t in New York in the early and mid 90s? But like the Powell piece illustrates, this guy is a talker, which ironically means he could have probably succeeded in the industry where fast talk will move you up the ladder faster than a number 1 hit. But it still involves work, and every indication points to Sabatino just wanting the attention without the blood, sweat and tears.

Philips either didn’t do any homework or completely bought this kids story like so many others have. Except he can’t be allowed to accept a story on face value, he is supposed to be reporting facts so why didn’t he question Sabatino’s involvement? I mean really, not to repeat myself or anything, but all he had to do was type dude’s name into Google – what appears?

"Con Kid"

"The Great Pretender"

If I, an almost graduated, wet behind the ears, green as can be aspiring journalist can find reason to question the claims of this kid their isn’t an excuse for the LA Times to have not.

Someone didn't do their homework.

Legal Ramifications (Part 2)

As we continue to analyze the situation at the LA Times and Chuck Philips article, I'm considering what the legal repurcussions will be. Yesterday I considered the basic conditions of a defamation suit, today we look at the defenses and possible outcomes of the case. If you missed part 1, check it out here!

---

The next matter to examine within defamation cases is the defense. The courts automatically accept the truth as a defense; however in this case it has already been proven that the truth is not what was reported. The next option for the Times is to argue that because of Rosemond’s reputation as a criminal (he does have a record for drug offenses) the story doesn’t damaged his persona anymore. While this is a likely argument Rosemond’s criminal acts are in his past and unless proven otherwise he has become a successful business man. Regardless of the many accusations levied against Rosemond over the years (his history in the streets is constantly questioned and analyzed) he is still innocent until proven guilty and the only crime he has been proven guilty of is one for which he has served his time. The last defense is that the speech is privileged, but this doesn’t apply to this case.

Proving libel per se automatically grants you damages – but facts can be introduced to enlarge or lower the amount in which those damages are. These monetary damages are determined by a jury. While specific damages are unlikely, Rosemond has continued his business since the story with little to no interruption, general damages – those which relate to the seriousness of the defamation and how much harm was inflicted by the defamatory act. Lastly there are punitive damages which serve as punishment to the defamer when the libel is particularly harmful.

I’m not a lawyer; however Rosemond and his attorney have both stated they intend to take full legal action whether it be civilly or criminally. As I’ve outlined here he is positioned best to have a case of libel per se. If Philips story had held up and not been discredited I would say that the case would be unlikely to proceed, however since it has come out that the documents were forged the accusations made from them become that much more dangerous and libelous.

As I reported in my analysis of what went wrong with this article I pointed out that a lawyer could have, and almost certainly should have, looked at what was being reported and what the facts were. The Times has hindered their defense in admitting that a lesser number of editors than normal reviewed the story and I do believe that Rosemond has a very good case of proving libel per se.

---

This article couldn’t have been possible without the assistance of this book:

Herbeck, Dale A. and Thomas L. Tedford. Freedom of Speech in the United States: 5th Edition. 2005. State College, Penn.: Strata Publishing, Inc.

Legal Ramifications (Part 1)

An element to the Philips story that is sure to play out in the future is the issue of defamation against certain individuals. The article makes accusations of the involvement of certain people in criminal acts, namely James Rosemond and James Sabatino, along with stating that Sean “Diddy” Combs and The Notorious B.I.G. were aware the attack on 2Pac was going to happen.

We can eliminate B.I.G. from this equation as he is dead, although I’m unsure if his estate could still claim defamation – that would be a more specific question that someone with more legal knowledge could address. Given that it appears as though Sabatino forged the documents in the story he would also have a challenging time proving he was defamed as he created the defaming documents.

This leaves Combs and Rosemond. The implication that Combs new about the shooting prior to its occurrence would make him accomplice to attempted murder. This is a serious crime and most certainly can harm Combs reputation as a business man. We will come back to him.

Rosemond has the strongest suit for libel per se – defamation charging criminality. Philips makes the accusation that the shooting and robbery of 2Pac was arranged by Rosemond.

In a defamation case there are four elements to consider. First some basic conditions must be met. The first of these is that the defamation must have occurred and the second is that the message had to be published – which in this case it most obviously did as Philips wrote it and the LA Times published it. The only caveat of defamation is that “right-thinking persons” must view the message as insulting or harmful. I think anyone would consider being accused of a violent crime as insulting and harmful. Lastly the person has to be identified – which Philips did outright in his story and referred back to him throughout the article.

The argument could be made that Rosemond is a “public figure” and therefore has to prove “actual malice” on the part of Philips and the times. While people within the music industry are aware of Rosemond he is not a musician, he is a manager and I wouldn’t consider him a person in the public eye – if the case of Combs were to go to trial given his persona he may be able to be considered a public figure, which would only harm his case as “actual malice” isn’t an easy standard to prove.

---

Be sure to check back tomorrow fort part 2 of our analysis of the legality of Philips article and the possible repurcussions.

An Article Gone Wrong (Part 2)

We continue to look at Philips article and the complications to consider. If you missed Part 1 check it out here!

---

Given the lack of cause to rush the story to press why wasn’t it investigated more fully? What prompted them to run the story with admittedly less scrutiny than usual?

“An investigative piece will usually be looked at by an assistant managing editor, a managing editor and probably a lawyer,” says Don Smith, interactivity editor for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer of their standards for review.

It is the lawyer element that I’m most curious about. This story of Philips is implicated powerful people within the music industry, who will not take kindly to being portrayed as violent criminals. A journalist’s job is to report the truth and the paper he or she writes for should support them when they need it, but on the flip side of that coin the paper also needs to question their reporter and ensure the vetting process is thoroughly completed.

“Lawyers will begin to challenge the facts,” Smith explains about the role they can play in the editorial process. Their role here, I imagine, would have been to take these documents – legal court records something they should have plenty of experience with and look at their validity.

While this should also have been expected of Philips, Jack Shafer of Slate.com points out one possible explanation as to why Philips could have ran with the information he had:

“Avoid confirmation bias. It's a universal human trait to seek evidence that confirms what you already believe, to interpret the evidence you've collected to bolster your existing view, and to avoid the evidence that would undermine your notions. "Philips said in an interview that he had believed the documents were legitimate because, in the reporting he had already done on the story, he had heard many of the same details," the Times reports today. Did Philips' willingness to believe what the documents said blind him to the typographic clues that the Smoking Gun says point to forgery? "[The documents] confirmed many of the things I'd learned on my own," Philips said in an interview [this interview has since been pulled from the Times site] before the debunking.”

While this is understandable, it is still inexcusable. Philips is a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter. He knows what it takes to investigate something and he knows, or should know, that he can’t allow his own opinions and biases to get in the way of the truth – that is what he should be in search of.