Wednesday, June 11, 2008
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.
Labels:
Chuck Philips,
Hip Hop,
Journalism Ethics,
LA Times
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
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.
“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.
Labels:
Chuck Philips,
Journalism Ethics,
LA Times,
Reporting,
Seattle PI
Monday, June 9, 2008
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.
Labels:
Bryon Crawford,
Hip Hop Blogging,
Jay Smooth,
XXL
Saturday, June 7, 2008
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:
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.
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.
Friday, June 6, 2008
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.
---
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.
Labels:
Chuck Philips,
Defamation,
Jimmy Rosemond,
LA Times,
Libel per se
Thursday, June 5, 2008
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.
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.
Labels:
Chuck Philips,
Defamation,
Jimmy Rosemond,
LA Times,
Libel per se
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
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:
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.
---
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.
Labels:
2Pac,
Biggie,
Hip Hop,
Journalism Ethics,
LA Times,
The Smoking Gun
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
An Article Gone Wrong (Part 1)
On March 17th the Hip Hop world awoke to a story that was sure to shock and make many reflect on events long forgotten. Not that we didn’t remember the infamous shooting of Tupac Shakur at Quad Recording studios, how could we with the multiple songs and rants ‘Pac went on to record after his recovery.
But this story, like another one from 2002 by the same author – award winning writer for the LA Times Chuck Philips, left many fans of the music perplexed. Who was this guy writing about us? Why was he so determined to investigate the murders of ‘Pac and Biggie? And where was he getting his facts?
Within the Hip Hop community there is often talk of criminal activity and artists try to build up connections to the street, but Philips story was straight out of your favorite rappers favorite gangsta flick.
Reporting the events of the evening from FBI documents of interviews with a confidential informant and his own anonymous sources Philips paints a picture of gangsters turned Hip Hop entrepreneurs and in the process implicates current power player Jimmy “Henchman” Rosemond (Rapper The Game’s manager) as the mastermind behind the shooting, along with a young man named James Sabatino.
The problem? The Smoking Gun website investigated Philips “documents” and found them to be filled with misspellings, featuring many of the same errors as documents filed by Sabatino in other unrelated court matters, along with convenient redactions of officers names and other information that would help place the documents. The documents were also found to have been prepared on a typewriter – which the FBI stopped using over thirty years ago. Finally the Smoking Gun showed the documents to retired FBI agents who didn’t recognize standard Bureau protocol within them.
Just as with the Dan Rather document scandal in 2004, it was the new internet journalists who had challenged the facts and proved the error.
But had the damage been done? The Times stated in their retraction that “the story was reviewed by [Marc] Duvoisin [Philips supervisor and Deputy managing editor] and two editors on the copy desk. Other investigative stories published by The Times in recent years have in some cases received the scrutiny of at least one more editor and often of the managing editor or editor of the newspaper. The Shakur piece did not receive that many layers of review.”
This is one of the key elements to what went wrong here. This story isn’t time sensitive. It is looking at events that took place over a decade ago – and the last major story at all related was written by Philips for the Times, they had the story and no one was chasing it… although then the question becomes why is this one guy following a “story” when it doesn’t seem to actually be a story?
---
Be sure to come back tomorrow for part 2 of the analysis of Philips errors!
But this story, like another one from 2002 by the same author – award winning writer for the LA Times Chuck Philips, left many fans of the music perplexed. Who was this guy writing about us? Why was he so determined to investigate the murders of ‘Pac and Biggie? And where was he getting his facts?
Within the Hip Hop community there is often talk of criminal activity and artists try to build up connections to the street, but Philips story was straight out of your favorite rappers favorite gangsta flick.
Reporting the events of the evening from FBI documents of interviews with a confidential informant and his own anonymous sources Philips paints a picture of gangsters turned Hip Hop entrepreneurs and in the process implicates current power player Jimmy “Henchman” Rosemond (Rapper The Game’s manager) as the mastermind behind the shooting, along with a young man named James Sabatino.
The problem? The Smoking Gun website investigated Philips “documents” and found them to be filled with misspellings, featuring many of the same errors as documents filed by Sabatino in other unrelated court matters, along with convenient redactions of officers names and other information that would help place the documents. The documents were also found to have been prepared on a typewriter – which the FBI stopped using over thirty years ago. Finally the Smoking Gun showed the documents to retired FBI agents who didn’t recognize standard Bureau protocol within them.
Just as with the Dan Rather document scandal in 2004, it was the new internet journalists who had challenged the facts and proved the error.
But had the damage been done? The Times stated in their retraction that “the story was reviewed by [Marc] Duvoisin [Philips supervisor and Deputy managing editor] and two editors on the copy desk. Other investigative stories published by The Times in recent years have in some cases received the scrutiny of at least one more editor and often of the managing editor or editor of the newspaper. The Shakur piece did not receive that many layers of review.”
This is one of the key elements to what went wrong here. This story isn’t time sensitive. It is looking at events that took place over a decade ago – and the last major story at all related was written by Philips for the Times, they had the story and no one was chasing it… although then the question becomes why is this one guy following a “story” when it doesn’t seem to actually be a story?
---
Be sure to come back tomorrow for part 2 of the analysis of Philips errors!
Labels:
2Pac,
Biggie,
Hip Hop,
Journalism Ethics,
LA Times,
The Smoking Gun
Monday, June 2, 2008
Past journalism errors and a look forward
In an age of electronic media and fading print journalism we have to consider the checks and balances system editors have played throughout history and how that system can transcend the medium in which a reporter uses so as to continue a high level of scrutiny on the reporting.
While new blogs appear all the time on the internet the question is raised – who is checking the facts and considering these stories before their published? As I learned about the Philips case I was curious to look at other events that were both similar and far worse.
The first case I considered was a that of Dan Rather and the scandal surrounding his and 60 Minutes use of what turned out to be forged documents. In Rather’s case the newsman and his staff had received documents that seemed to support claims that President Bush had violated regulations of the Texas Air National Guard and received special treatment due to who his father is.
While both Rather’s situation and that of Philips today are similar in that they deal with a report making claims based off a forged document the situations couldn’t be more different. However, regardless of the situation the process of journalism can’t be forgotten or abridged because of what you are reporting on.
Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute said in an interview at the time of the Rather fiasco “CBS and Dan Rather failed journalistically. They failed ethically. They did not do the appropriate reporting at the front end and they failed to apply rigorous oversight and checks and balances in the process and to the product.”
I also considered the case of Jayson Blair at the New York Times and his countless acts of plagiarism. During his tenure with the paper he wrote over 600 articles, all of which must be called into question given his actions.
While the differences between the Blair and Philips cases are more obvious (plagiarism vs. use of fake documents) the reaction should be the same. Beyond this though we need to look at how our journalism ethics are being transferred into the next generation.
If journalism is going to sustain this move into a new medium we have to hold reporters to the same standard and address their errors with the same vigor. It’s continually being questioned as to whether bloggers are journalists. Regardless of the answer, most bloggers are attempting to report something and this fact means they need to be held accountable for what it is they publish just as those before them have been.
In trying to determine what the appropriate action is to be taken against both Chuck Philips and the LA Times it is important to analyze these past errors and the resultant action. While Rather was able to leave CBS gracefully, it is hard to not view his role with the forged documents as the event that helped ease him out of his anchor position. Blair resigned from the New York Times, which I view as a travesty. He should not have been allowed the dignity of resignation - they should have fired him.
Philips is still on the pay roll of the LA Times but his future roll with the paper is being determined.
While new blogs appear all the time on the internet the question is raised – who is checking the facts and considering these stories before their published? As I learned about the Philips case I was curious to look at other events that were both similar and far worse.
The first case I considered was a that of Dan Rather and the scandal surrounding his and 60 Minutes use of what turned out to be forged documents. In Rather’s case the newsman and his staff had received documents that seemed to support claims that President Bush had violated regulations of the Texas Air National Guard and received special treatment due to who his father is.
While both Rather’s situation and that of Philips today are similar in that they deal with a report making claims based off a forged document the situations couldn’t be more different. However, regardless of the situation the process of journalism can’t be forgotten or abridged because of what you are reporting on.
Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute said in an interview at the time of the Rather fiasco “CBS and Dan Rather failed journalistically. They failed ethically. They did not do the appropriate reporting at the front end and they failed to apply rigorous oversight and checks and balances in the process and to the product.”
I also considered the case of Jayson Blair at the New York Times and his countless acts of plagiarism. During his tenure with the paper he wrote over 600 articles, all of which must be called into question given his actions.
While the differences between the Blair and Philips cases are more obvious (plagiarism vs. use of fake documents) the reaction should be the same. Beyond this though we need to look at how our journalism ethics are being transferred into the next generation.
If journalism is going to sustain this move into a new medium we have to hold reporters to the same standard and address their errors with the same vigor. It’s continually being questioned as to whether bloggers are journalists. Regardless of the answer, most bloggers are attempting to report something and this fact means they need to be held accountable for what it is they publish just as those before them have been.
In trying to determine what the appropriate action is to be taken against both Chuck Philips and the LA Times it is important to analyze these past errors and the resultant action. While Rather was able to leave CBS gracefully, it is hard to not view his role with the forged documents as the event that helped ease him out of his anchor position. Blair resigned from the New York Times, which I view as a travesty. He should not have been allowed the dignity of resignation - they should have fired him.
Philips is still on the pay roll of the LA Times but his future roll with the paper is being determined.
Labels:
Dan Rather,
Ethics,
Jayson Blair,
Journalism,
Poynter Institute
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Some History To Consider
While Chuck Philips article is about an event that took place in 1994, the seeds for its reality began a few years prior. To place this conversation in context here is a timeline that documents the progression of the rivalry between coasts.
Late 1980s – West coast artists such as N.W.A. and Ice-T begin seeing success and start to garner attention that had almost exclusively been for New York artists.
1991 – Tim Dog, a New York based emcee, released the dis track “Fuck Compton” directed at N.W.A. The song causes a wave of responses from various West coast artists.
Dec. 15th, 1992 – Dr. Dre releases The Chronic on Death Row Records. Becomes a multi-platinum hit.
1993 – Sean “Puff Daddy” Combs starts Bad Boy Records, signs The Notorious B.I.G.
Nov. 23rd, 1993 – Snoop Dogg releases Doggystyle on Death Row Records – quickly becoming another multi-platinum hit.
1994 – The success of Death Row records brings the spotlight to Los Angeles and the West coast, while their East coast counterparts struggled to maintain commercial viability.
Sept. 14th, 1994 – The Notorious B.I.G. releases Ready to Die on Bad Boy Records.
Nov. 30th, 1994 – 2Pac is shot at Quad Recording Studios in New York. Puffy and Biggie were in the building on a different floor. This combined with the release of “Who Shot Ya?” by Biggie led to 2Pac becoming convinced that Puffy and Biggie were involved in his shooting.
Aug. 1995 – Suge Knight taunts Puffy at the Source Awards stating “Any artists out there who wants to be an artist and stay a star, and don't wanna have to worry about the executive producer trying to be…all in the videos, all on the records, dancing…come to Death Row!”
Oct. 1995 – In exchange for his bail being paid 2Pac signs with Suge Knight and Death Row Records, further establishing the rivalry with Bad Boy Records.
Late ’95 into 1996 – 2Pac released many songs attacking Biggie, Bad Boy Records and the east coast.
1996 – Death Row act Tha Dogg Pound releases a music video for their single “New York, New York” which features the two West coast emcees knocking over skyscrapers in New York. New York rappers Tragedy Khadafi, Capone-N-Noreaga and Mobb Deep respond with a video for “LA, LA” in which the murder of Tha Dogg Pound is portrayed.
Sept. 7th, 1996 – 2Pac is shot in Las Vegas.
Sept. 13th, 1996 – 2Pac dies from his wounds.
March 9th, 1997 – The Notorious B.I.G. is shot and killed in Los Angeles.
While artists from both coasts helped spur this rivalry forward, it was often the media that helped sensationalize the events. Following the murders of 2Pac and Biggie, artists, fans and the media reevaluated their roles in the feud and how they would handle similar situations in the future.
Late 1980s – West coast artists such as N.W.A. and Ice-T begin seeing success and start to garner attention that had almost exclusively been for New York artists.
1991 – Tim Dog, a New York based emcee, released the dis track “Fuck Compton” directed at N.W.A. The song causes a wave of responses from various West coast artists.
Dec. 15th, 1992 – Dr. Dre releases The Chronic on Death Row Records. Becomes a multi-platinum hit.
1993 – Sean “Puff Daddy” Combs starts Bad Boy Records, signs The Notorious B.I.G.
Nov. 23rd, 1993 – Snoop Dogg releases Doggystyle on Death Row Records – quickly becoming another multi-platinum hit.
1994 – The success of Death Row records brings the spotlight to Los Angeles and the West coast, while their East coast counterparts struggled to maintain commercial viability.
Sept. 14th, 1994 – The Notorious B.I.G. releases Ready to Die on Bad Boy Records.
Nov. 30th, 1994 – 2Pac is shot at Quad Recording Studios in New York. Puffy and Biggie were in the building on a different floor. This combined with the release of “Who Shot Ya?” by Biggie led to 2Pac becoming convinced that Puffy and Biggie were involved in his shooting.
Aug. 1995 – Suge Knight taunts Puffy at the Source Awards stating “Any artists out there who wants to be an artist and stay a star, and don't wanna have to worry about the executive producer trying to be…all in the videos, all on the records, dancing…come to Death Row!”
Oct. 1995 – In exchange for his bail being paid 2Pac signs with Suge Knight and Death Row Records, further establishing the rivalry with Bad Boy Records.
Late ’95 into 1996 – 2Pac released many songs attacking Biggie, Bad Boy Records and the east coast.
1996 – Death Row act Tha Dogg Pound releases a music video for their single “New York, New York” which features the two West coast emcees knocking over skyscrapers in New York. New York rappers Tragedy Khadafi, Capone-N-Noreaga and Mobb Deep respond with a video for “LA, LA” in which the murder of Tha Dogg Pound is portrayed.
Sept. 7th, 1996 – 2Pac is shot in Las Vegas.
Sept. 13th, 1996 – 2Pac dies from his wounds.
March 9th, 1997 – The Notorious B.I.G. is shot and killed in Los Angeles.
While artists from both coasts helped spur this rivalry forward, it was often the media that helped sensationalize the events. Following the murders of 2Pac and Biggie, artists, fans and the media reevaluated their roles in the feud and how they would handle similar situations in the future.
Labels:
Dr. Dre,
East Coast,
Hip Hop,
Music,
Rap,
Snoop Dogg,
West Coast
Hello & Welcome
As I wrap up my senior year of college I’m looking into the events surrounding the publishing of an article for the LA Times that was written by Chuck Philips.
On March 17th Philips and the Times published a story on their website (it has since been pulled from their site – I provide you with a copy here) that detailed the shooting of 2Pac at Quad Recording studios in 1994. Philips story claimed that Puff Daddy and Jimmy Rosemond orchestrated the shooting. The story was run on the entertainment front page of the Times print edition on the 19th.
On the 26th the website The Smoking Gun published the story “Big Phat Liar” examining the documents that served as the basis for much of Philips article and looking into the history of a one James Sabatino. The report found the documents Philips relied on to be forgeries that were most likely created by Sabatino, who also plays an integral role in Philips story.
The following day the LA Times issued an apology and on April 7th a formal retraction was published, along with the apology once again for extra emphasis.
The events surrounding this situation are not entirely clear. My purpose here will be to analyze the responsibility and ethics surrounding the issue and to consider how it could have been handled differently.
On March 17th Philips and the Times published a story on their website (it has since been pulled from their site – I provide you with a copy here) that detailed the shooting of 2Pac at Quad Recording studios in 1994. Philips story claimed that Puff Daddy and Jimmy Rosemond orchestrated the shooting. The story was run on the entertainment front page of the Times print edition on the 19th.
On the 26th the website The Smoking Gun published the story “Big Phat Liar” examining the documents that served as the basis for much of Philips article and looking into the history of a one James Sabatino. The report found the documents Philips relied on to be forgeries that were most likely created by Sabatino, who also plays an integral role in Philips story.
The following day the LA Times issued an apology and on April 7th a formal retraction was published, along with the apology once again for extra emphasis.
The events surrounding this situation are not entirely clear. My purpose here will be to analyze the responsibility and ethics surrounding the issue and to consider how it could have been handled differently.
Labels:
Ethics,
Hip Hop,
Journalism,
LA Times,
Music,
Puffy Daddy
Saturday, May 31, 2008
An Attack on Tupac Shakur launched a hip-hop war
In 1994, Tupac Shakur was ambushed, beaten and shot at the Quad Recording Studios in New York. He insisted that friends of Sean 'Diddy' Combs were behind it. New information supports him.
By Chuck Philips
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 19, 2008
NEW YORK -- Cameras flashed as paramedics carried the victim into the glare of Times Square on a stretcher. Blood seeped through bandages from five gunshot wounds.
Tupac Shakur had been beaten, shot and left for dead at the Quad Recording Studios on New York's 7th Avenue. As he was borne to a waiting ambulance through a swarm of paparazzi on Nov. 30, 1994, the rap star thrust his middle finger into the air.
It was a portentous moment in hip-hop -- the start of a bicoastal war that would culminate years later in the killings of Shakur and rap's other leading star, Christopher Wallace, better known as the Notorious B.I.G.
The ambush at the Quad remains a source of fascination and frustration to music fans and law enforcement officials alike. No one has ever been charged in the attack.
Now, newly discovered information, including interviews with people who were at the studio that night, lends credence to Shakur's insistence that associates of rap impresario Sean "Diddy" Combs were behind the assault. Their alleged motives: to punish Shakur for disrespecting them and rejecting their business overtures and, not incidentally, to curry favor with Combs.
The information focuses on two New York hip-hop figures -- talent manager James "Jimmy Henchman" Rosemond and promoter James Sabatino, who is now in prison for unrelated crimes.
FBI records obtained recently by The Times say that a confidential informant told authorities in 2002 that Rosemond and Sabatino "set up the rapper Tupac Shakur to get shot at Quad Studios." The informant said Sabatino had told him that Shakur "had to be dealt with."
The records -- summaries of FBI interviews with the informant conducted in July and December 2002 -- provide details of how Shakur was lured to the studio and ambushed. Others with knowledge of the incident corroborated the informant's account in interviews with The Times and gave additional details.
According to this information, Rosemond and Sabatino, infuriated by what they saw as Shakur's insolent behavior, enticed him to the Quad by offering him $7,000 to provide a vocal track for a rap recording.
Three assailants -- reputedly friends of Rosemond -- were lying in wait. They were on orders to beat Shakur but not kill him and to make the incident look like a robbery, the sources said. They were told they could keep whatever jewelry or other valuables they could steal from Shakur and his entourage.
A member of Shakur's posse cooperated with the rapper's enemies, relaying their offer of a $7,000 payment and keeping them informed of his whereabouts on the night of the assault, according to the informant and the other sources.
Rosemond, who has served prison time for drug dealing and weapons offenses, has been described by Vibe magazine as "one of the most respected and feared players in hip-hop." His Czar Entertainment represents rappers Shyne, Too Short, Gucci Mane and the Game.
Rosemond has long denied any role in the Quad incident. He declined to be interviewed for this article, but his lawyer, Jeffrey Lichtman, dismissed the new information as "ancient double-hearsay allegations."
Lichtman noted that Rosemond had never been charged or questioned in connection with the attack -- a sign, Lichtman said, that federal authorities have "discounted" what the informant told them. Rosemond "was not involved in the assault and will not be prosecuted for it," Lichtman said.
Sabatino declined to comment.
Combs, whose business empire includes Bad Boy Records and clothing and fragrance lines, also declined to comment.
The FBI documents do not name the informant. The Times learned his identity and verified that he was at the Quad on the night of the assault. When contacted, the man said the FBI records accurately convey what happened, and what he told investigators. He and the other sources interviewed for this article discussed the events of Nov. 30, 1994, on condition that their names not be published.
Their accounts are consistent with Shakur's own. In interviews and on recordings, the rapper blamed Rosemond, Combs and their associates for the attack and promised to get even.
"Grab your Glocks when you see Tupac," he said in the 1996 song "Hit 'Em Up."
"Call the cops when you see Tupac
"Who shot me? But you punks didn't finish
"Now you're 'bout to feel the wrath of a menace!"
Roots of an ambush
The Quad ambush had its roots in events a year earlier, when Shakur returned to New York from California to film the movie "Above the Rim." The Brooklyn native, then 22, had two hit albums under his belt and was starting to taste success as an actor.
While in New York, he befriended Rosemond, the son of Haitian immigrants, who had run with street gangs and worked in the crack trade before gravitating to the hip-hop scene. He had a prominent scar on his forehead and cultivated an air of danger.
According to accounts given by the two men and others over the years, Rosemond, then 29, took Shakur under his wing, showing him around the city and introducing him to friends, including an ex-convict named Jacques "Haitian Jack" Agnant. Shakur and Agnant hit it off and were soon partying at clubs across Manhattan.
There was a serious side to the revelry. Rosemond was trying to establish himself as a talent manager -- he had formed a company called Henchman Productions -- and he and Agnant hoped to represent Shakur. They encouraged the rapper to sign a recording contract with Combs' fledgling Bad Boy label, which had recently received more than $2 million in capital from BMG's Arista division.
Shakur also became acquainted with Sabatino, a 19-year-old Italian American who co-promoted rap conventions with Rosemond. Sabatino had Brooklyn roots of a different kind that gave him cachet in the hip-hop world: His father was a captain in the Colombo crime family, according to federal authorities.
Like Rosemond and Agnant, Sabatino wanted to ride Combs' rising star, and he too leaned on Shakur to leave Interscope Records and sign with Bad Boy.
Shakur rejected these overtures. Members of Combs' circle saw this as an act of disrespect.
Shakur's behavior in New York grew increasingly provocative. He insulted music executives and gangsters alike. He brandished weapons in public. Even friends thought he was out of control.
In November 1993, Shakur, Agnant and two other men were arrested on charges of gang-raping a 19-year-old fan at the Parker Meridien Hotel in midtown Manhattan. Shakur posted bail and returned to Los Angeles.
A year later, he was back in New York to stand trial on the charges. By then, his former pals were laying plans to exact revenge, according to the FBI informant and the other sources.
Carefully laid plans
On Nov. 29, 1994, two dozen Bad Boy executives and associates gathered on the 10th floor of the Quad to record songs for a debut album by Junior M.A.F.I.A., a group formed by the Notorious B.I.G., Bad Boy's leading artist.
On hand were Combs, B.I.G., Rosemond, Agnant and Sabatino. Also present, among others, were rapper James "Lil' Cease" Lloyd and music executive Andre Harrell.
Rosemond had booked an adjacent studio to produce a recording by rapper Little Shawn, whose career he managed. This was the session at which Shakur was to be paid $7,000 for a guest vocal.
In fact, Rosemond never intended to record the session, according to the FBI informant and the other sources.
He had enlisted a trio of his friends from Brooklyn to ambush Shakur in the lobby of the Quad, the sources said.
Agnant and Sabatino helped plan the attack, working out the timing, arranging for the three assailants to be driven to the studio and mapping out their escape route, according to the informant and the other sources. Sabatino informed Combs and Wallace in advance that a trap had been laid for Shakur, the sources said.
Shakur's friend Randy "Stretch" Walker was in on the plan, the sources said. In the hours before the attack, Shakur and Rosemond argued several times over the phone about how much Shakur would be paid. After the dispute was settled, Walker notified Agnant when Shakur was en route, the sources said.
Around 11:30 p.m., Sabatino effectively locked down the 10th floor, quietly intercepting anyone who tried to leave, the FBI informant and the other sources said.
Fifteen minutes later, the lobby security guard was called away from his post, and the three assailants, dressed in army fatigues, moved into position. One sat in the guard's chair. The two others waited outside.
Just after midnight, Shakur walked in with Walker and his manager, Fred Moore. He buzzed the studio upstairs to let them know he was on his way. The assailant posing as a security guard flipped nonchalantly through a newspaper.
As the rapper and his crew walked toward the elevator, the two other assailants rushed in from outside and demanded that Shakur and the others turn over their jewelry. When Shakur refused, all three attackers began to pistol-whip him.
The rapper surprised them by drawing his own weapon. Gunfire erupted, and Shakur accidentally shot himself in the groin. The assailants shot Shakur four times. He sustained injuries to the head, hand and thigh -- serious but not life-threatening.
The men beat and kicked the rapper as he lay bleeding on the ground. Then, ripping a $40,000 gold medallion and chain from his neck, they escaped into the night.
Moore, who was also wounded, gave chase and collapsed in the street.
The FBI informant said the shots were audible in the 10th-floor studio. "Sabatino, Rosemond and Combs did not seem concerned about this," the informant told the FBI, though others in the studio "were very upset."
Shakur managed to limp into the elevator and push the button for the 10th floor. Walker rode up with him.
When the elevator doors opened, the rapper surveyed the assembled Bad Boy crowd.
In a 2005 interview with Vibe magazine, in which he denied any role in the attack, Rosemond described how the injured Shakur accused him of being in on the ambush.
Rosemond quoted the rapper as asking: "Why you let them know I'm coming here? You was the only [one] who knew, man. Why?"
In a bizarre twist, Shakur, bleeding badly, sat on a couch and rolled a joint, witnesses said. Then he phoned his girlfriend, who contacted his mother, former Black Panther Afeni Shakur. Harrell called 911. Paramedics showed up minutes later. Police began interviewing witnesses.
The FBI informant said Agnant told him that "anyone who thought the shooting was a robbery was crazy." He said Agnant "seemed mad that Shakur was still alive and kept calling" the hospital "to check on Shakur's status."
Efforts to reach Agnant for comment were unsuccessful.
Surgeons at Bellevue Hospital Center operated on Shakur for three hours. Later the same day, the rapper signed himself out of the hospital against doctors' advice.
The very next day -- Dec. 1, 1994 -- a heavily bandaged Shakur rolled into court in a wheelchair to hear the jury's verdict in the Parker Meridien case. He was convicted of first-degree sexual abuse and later sentenced to 4½ years in prison. (Agnant had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges and avoided prison.)
The three men identified by the sources as Shakur's assailants are all serving time in federal penitentiaries for unrelated crimes. The Times is withholding their names because they have not been charged.
In correspondence with The Times, one of the men said that Rosemond orchestrated the ambush. Another was cryptic. He wrote that the statute of limitations for the assault had expired, and he offered to produce, for an unspecified fee, the medallion stolen from Shakur.
The third inmate denied involvement in the attack.
'Bad Boy's behind this'
The Quad ambush triggered a vicious, well-chronicled feud between East Coast and West Coast rappers and their record labels, New York-based Bad Boy and Death Row Records of Los Angeles.
At awards shows, in music videos and in song lyrics, the feuding camps laid down challenges that the stars' posses acted out with gunfire.
In April 1995, four months after the Quad attack, Vibe magazine published a prison interview with Shakur in which he said Combs and his associates were responsible.
Not long after, Bad Boy released a new song by the Notorious B.I.G., "Who Shot Ya?," which describes an ambush in which the victim is shot by three assailants. It closes with a taunt:
"You rewind this
"Bad Boy's behind this."
In June of that year, Death Row founder Marion "Suge" Knight began visiting Shakur in prison and wooing him to join his music label. Later that month, Knight mocked Combs onstage during a rap awards show in Manhattan.
In apparent retaliation, gunmen shot up a trailer outside a video shoot in New York in which Death Row rappers had been filmed stomping through a miniature model of Manhattan like Godzilla.
In August 1995, Knight's bodyguard was shot and killed at a club in Atlanta. Knight accused a Combs associate in the killing; no one was ever charged. Soon after, Shakur, still behind bars for his sexual-abuse conviction, signed a contract with Death Row. Knight posted a $1.4-million bond for the rapper, freeing him from prison while he appealed the verdict.
In November 1995 -- a year to the day after the Quad ambush -- Shakur's onetime companion, "Stretch" Walker, was shot dead in Queens, N.Y.
Early the following year, Death Row released Shakur's "All Eyez On Me," in which he ridiculed East Coast rappers. In a later release, "Hit 'Em Up," Shakur belittled Combs, bragged that he had sex with the Notorious B.I.G.'s wife and vowed retribution for the Quad assault.
On Sept. 7, 1996, Shakur was fatally wounded in a drive-by shooting on the Las Vegas Strip. Six months later, the Notorious B.I.G. was shot dead in Los Angeles, also in a drive-by. No one has been charged in either slaying.
Moving on
In the years after the mayhem at the Quad, Rosemond tried to dispel persistent rumors that he arranged the attack. He protested his innocence in Vibe magazine and appealed to Shakur, in vain, to cease his public accusations.
In 1996, Rosemond was convicted of drug and weapons offenses and sentenced to five years in prison. Released three years later, he reinvented himself as a talent manager. His turbulent past gave him street cred and helped attract a clientele of rappers to his Czar Entertainment. Two years ago, he was convicted of assaulting a radio disc jockey in Washington, D.C. He remains on probation for the offense.
Sabatino became a fixture in Combs' circle. He went on the road with B.I.G. and joined Combs on his 1997 "No Way Out" tour, helping him stage lavish private parties and land corporate sponsorships.
During the tour, Sabatino used fake credit cards to run up tens of thousands of dollars in charges for hotel suites, limousines and helicopters for the Bad Boy entourage. He was arrested in London and extradited to the U.S. He is serving an 11½-year prison term for wire fraud and racketeering.
In the years after the Quad, Combs transcended hip-hop to become an international celebrity and brand name. He has recorded Grammy-winning rap albums and acted in off-Broadway plays. He hosts a weekly MTV show, owns a restaurant in Atlanta and presides over the Sean John clothing line and the Unforgivable fragrance brand. Forbes magazine last year estimated his income at $23 million.
The New York police investigation into the Quad attack quickly hit a dead end. But federal prosecutors conducting a broad investigation of the rap business have continued to explore the incident and its role in the subsequent string of shootings and killings. Various music-industry figures have been called before a federal grand jury and questioned about what happened that night.
'Set me up'
Two months after Shakur was killed, Death Row Records released his album "The Don Killuminati." It entered the pop charts at No. 1 and sold 800,000 copies in its first week.
The CD cover depicts the rap star nailed to a cross like a martyred prophet. In the song "Against All Odds," Shakur, like a ghost from the grave, calls out those he held responsible for starting the violence:
"I take this war . . . deeply
"Done seen too many real players fall
"To let these [cowards] beat me
"Puffy, let's be honest, you a punk. . . .
"You can tell the people you roll with whatever you want
"But you and I know
"What's goin' on."
Shakur then mentions "a snitch named Haitian Jack" and promises "a payback" to "Jimmy Henchman in due time."
"Set me up, wet me up. . . . stuck me up," he sings.
"But you tricks never shut me up."
By Chuck Philips
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 19, 2008
NEW YORK -- Cameras flashed as paramedics carried the victim into the glare of Times Square on a stretcher. Blood seeped through bandages from five gunshot wounds.
Tupac Shakur had been beaten, shot and left for dead at the Quad Recording Studios on New York's 7th Avenue. As he was borne to a waiting ambulance through a swarm of paparazzi on Nov. 30, 1994, the rap star thrust his middle finger into the air.
It was a portentous moment in hip-hop -- the start of a bicoastal war that would culminate years later in the killings of Shakur and rap's other leading star, Christopher Wallace, better known as the Notorious B.I.G.
The ambush at the Quad remains a source of fascination and frustration to music fans and law enforcement officials alike. No one has ever been charged in the attack.
Now, newly discovered information, including interviews with people who were at the studio that night, lends credence to Shakur's insistence that associates of rap impresario Sean "Diddy" Combs were behind the assault. Their alleged motives: to punish Shakur for disrespecting them and rejecting their business overtures and, not incidentally, to curry favor with Combs.
The information focuses on two New York hip-hop figures -- talent manager James "Jimmy Henchman" Rosemond and promoter James Sabatino, who is now in prison for unrelated crimes.
FBI records obtained recently by The Times say that a confidential informant told authorities in 2002 that Rosemond and Sabatino "set up the rapper Tupac Shakur to get shot at Quad Studios." The informant said Sabatino had told him that Shakur "had to be dealt with."
The records -- summaries of FBI interviews with the informant conducted in July and December 2002 -- provide details of how Shakur was lured to the studio and ambushed. Others with knowledge of the incident corroborated the informant's account in interviews with The Times and gave additional details.
According to this information, Rosemond and Sabatino, infuriated by what they saw as Shakur's insolent behavior, enticed him to the Quad by offering him $7,000 to provide a vocal track for a rap recording.
Three assailants -- reputedly friends of Rosemond -- were lying in wait. They were on orders to beat Shakur but not kill him and to make the incident look like a robbery, the sources said. They were told they could keep whatever jewelry or other valuables they could steal from Shakur and his entourage.
A member of Shakur's posse cooperated with the rapper's enemies, relaying their offer of a $7,000 payment and keeping them informed of his whereabouts on the night of the assault, according to the informant and the other sources.
Rosemond, who has served prison time for drug dealing and weapons offenses, has been described by Vibe magazine as "one of the most respected and feared players in hip-hop." His Czar Entertainment represents rappers Shyne, Too Short, Gucci Mane and the Game.
Rosemond has long denied any role in the Quad incident. He declined to be interviewed for this article, but his lawyer, Jeffrey Lichtman, dismissed the new information as "ancient double-hearsay allegations."
Lichtman noted that Rosemond had never been charged or questioned in connection with the attack -- a sign, Lichtman said, that federal authorities have "discounted" what the informant told them. Rosemond "was not involved in the assault and will not be prosecuted for it," Lichtman said.
Sabatino declined to comment.
Combs, whose business empire includes Bad Boy Records and clothing and fragrance lines, also declined to comment.
The FBI documents do not name the informant. The Times learned his identity and verified that he was at the Quad on the night of the assault. When contacted, the man said the FBI records accurately convey what happened, and what he told investigators. He and the other sources interviewed for this article discussed the events of Nov. 30, 1994, on condition that their names not be published.
Their accounts are consistent with Shakur's own. In interviews and on recordings, the rapper blamed Rosemond, Combs and their associates for the attack and promised to get even.
"Grab your Glocks when you see Tupac," he said in the 1996 song "Hit 'Em Up."
"Call the cops when you see Tupac
"Who shot me? But you punks didn't finish
"Now you're 'bout to feel the wrath of a menace!"
Roots of an ambush
The Quad ambush had its roots in events a year earlier, when Shakur returned to New York from California to film the movie "Above the Rim." The Brooklyn native, then 22, had two hit albums under his belt and was starting to taste success as an actor.
While in New York, he befriended Rosemond, the son of Haitian immigrants, who had run with street gangs and worked in the crack trade before gravitating to the hip-hop scene. He had a prominent scar on his forehead and cultivated an air of danger.
According to accounts given by the two men and others over the years, Rosemond, then 29, took Shakur under his wing, showing him around the city and introducing him to friends, including an ex-convict named Jacques "Haitian Jack" Agnant. Shakur and Agnant hit it off and were soon partying at clubs across Manhattan.
There was a serious side to the revelry. Rosemond was trying to establish himself as a talent manager -- he had formed a company called Henchman Productions -- and he and Agnant hoped to represent Shakur. They encouraged the rapper to sign a recording contract with Combs' fledgling Bad Boy label, which had recently received more than $2 million in capital from BMG's Arista division.
Shakur also became acquainted with Sabatino, a 19-year-old Italian American who co-promoted rap conventions with Rosemond. Sabatino had Brooklyn roots of a different kind that gave him cachet in the hip-hop world: His father was a captain in the Colombo crime family, according to federal authorities.
Like Rosemond and Agnant, Sabatino wanted to ride Combs' rising star, and he too leaned on Shakur to leave Interscope Records and sign with Bad Boy.
Shakur rejected these overtures. Members of Combs' circle saw this as an act of disrespect.
Shakur's behavior in New York grew increasingly provocative. He insulted music executives and gangsters alike. He brandished weapons in public. Even friends thought he was out of control.
In November 1993, Shakur, Agnant and two other men were arrested on charges of gang-raping a 19-year-old fan at the Parker Meridien Hotel in midtown Manhattan. Shakur posted bail and returned to Los Angeles.
A year later, he was back in New York to stand trial on the charges. By then, his former pals were laying plans to exact revenge, according to the FBI informant and the other sources.
Carefully laid plans
On Nov. 29, 1994, two dozen Bad Boy executives and associates gathered on the 10th floor of the Quad to record songs for a debut album by Junior M.A.F.I.A., a group formed by the Notorious B.I.G., Bad Boy's leading artist.
On hand were Combs, B.I.G., Rosemond, Agnant and Sabatino. Also present, among others, were rapper James "Lil' Cease" Lloyd and music executive Andre Harrell.
Rosemond had booked an adjacent studio to produce a recording by rapper Little Shawn, whose career he managed. This was the session at which Shakur was to be paid $7,000 for a guest vocal.
In fact, Rosemond never intended to record the session, according to the FBI informant and the other sources.
He had enlisted a trio of his friends from Brooklyn to ambush Shakur in the lobby of the Quad, the sources said.
Agnant and Sabatino helped plan the attack, working out the timing, arranging for the three assailants to be driven to the studio and mapping out their escape route, according to the informant and the other sources. Sabatino informed Combs and Wallace in advance that a trap had been laid for Shakur, the sources said.
Shakur's friend Randy "Stretch" Walker was in on the plan, the sources said. In the hours before the attack, Shakur and Rosemond argued several times over the phone about how much Shakur would be paid. After the dispute was settled, Walker notified Agnant when Shakur was en route, the sources said.
Around 11:30 p.m., Sabatino effectively locked down the 10th floor, quietly intercepting anyone who tried to leave, the FBI informant and the other sources said.
Fifteen minutes later, the lobby security guard was called away from his post, and the three assailants, dressed in army fatigues, moved into position. One sat in the guard's chair. The two others waited outside.
Just after midnight, Shakur walked in with Walker and his manager, Fred Moore. He buzzed the studio upstairs to let them know he was on his way. The assailant posing as a security guard flipped nonchalantly through a newspaper.
As the rapper and his crew walked toward the elevator, the two other assailants rushed in from outside and demanded that Shakur and the others turn over their jewelry. When Shakur refused, all three attackers began to pistol-whip him.
The rapper surprised them by drawing his own weapon. Gunfire erupted, and Shakur accidentally shot himself in the groin. The assailants shot Shakur four times. He sustained injuries to the head, hand and thigh -- serious but not life-threatening.
The men beat and kicked the rapper as he lay bleeding on the ground. Then, ripping a $40,000 gold medallion and chain from his neck, they escaped into the night.
Moore, who was also wounded, gave chase and collapsed in the street.
The FBI informant said the shots were audible in the 10th-floor studio. "Sabatino, Rosemond and Combs did not seem concerned about this," the informant told the FBI, though others in the studio "were very upset."
Shakur managed to limp into the elevator and push the button for the 10th floor. Walker rode up with him.
When the elevator doors opened, the rapper surveyed the assembled Bad Boy crowd.
In a 2005 interview with Vibe magazine, in which he denied any role in the attack, Rosemond described how the injured Shakur accused him of being in on the ambush.
Rosemond quoted the rapper as asking: "Why you let them know I'm coming here? You was the only [one] who knew, man. Why?"
In a bizarre twist, Shakur, bleeding badly, sat on a couch and rolled a joint, witnesses said. Then he phoned his girlfriend, who contacted his mother, former Black Panther Afeni Shakur. Harrell called 911. Paramedics showed up minutes later. Police began interviewing witnesses.
The FBI informant said Agnant told him that "anyone who thought the shooting was a robbery was crazy." He said Agnant "seemed mad that Shakur was still alive and kept calling" the hospital "to check on Shakur's status."
Efforts to reach Agnant for comment were unsuccessful.
Surgeons at Bellevue Hospital Center operated on Shakur for three hours. Later the same day, the rapper signed himself out of the hospital against doctors' advice.
The very next day -- Dec. 1, 1994 -- a heavily bandaged Shakur rolled into court in a wheelchair to hear the jury's verdict in the Parker Meridien case. He was convicted of first-degree sexual abuse and later sentenced to 4½ years in prison. (Agnant had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges and avoided prison.)
The three men identified by the sources as Shakur's assailants are all serving time in federal penitentiaries for unrelated crimes. The Times is withholding their names because they have not been charged.
In correspondence with The Times, one of the men said that Rosemond orchestrated the ambush. Another was cryptic. He wrote that the statute of limitations for the assault had expired, and he offered to produce, for an unspecified fee, the medallion stolen from Shakur.
The third inmate denied involvement in the attack.
'Bad Boy's behind this'
The Quad ambush triggered a vicious, well-chronicled feud between East Coast and West Coast rappers and their record labels, New York-based Bad Boy and Death Row Records of Los Angeles.
At awards shows, in music videos and in song lyrics, the feuding camps laid down challenges that the stars' posses acted out with gunfire.
In April 1995, four months after the Quad attack, Vibe magazine published a prison interview with Shakur in which he said Combs and his associates were responsible.
Not long after, Bad Boy released a new song by the Notorious B.I.G., "Who Shot Ya?," which describes an ambush in which the victim is shot by three assailants. It closes with a taunt:
"You rewind this
"Bad Boy's behind this."
In June of that year, Death Row founder Marion "Suge" Knight began visiting Shakur in prison and wooing him to join his music label. Later that month, Knight mocked Combs onstage during a rap awards show in Manhattan.
In apparent retaliation, gunmen shot up a trailer outside a video shoot in New York in which Death Row rappers had been filmed stomping through a miniature model of Manhattan like Godzilla.
In August 1995, Knight's bodyguard was shot and killed at a club in Atlanta. Knight accused a Combs associate in the killing; no one was ever charged. Soon after, Shakur, still behind bars for his sexual-abuse conviction, signed a contract with Death Row. Knight posted a $1.4-million bond for the rapper, freeing him from prison while he appealed the verdict.
In November 1995 -- a year to the day after the Quad ambush -- Shakur's onetime companion, "Stretch" Walker, was shot dead in Queens, N.Y.
Early the following year, Death Row released Shakur's "All Eyez On Me," in which he ridiculed East Coast rappers. In a later release, "Hit 'Em Up," Shakur belittled Combs, bragged that he had sex with the Notorious B.I.G.'s wife and vowed retribution for the Quad assault.
On Sept. 7, 1996, Shakur was fatally wounded in a drive-by shooting on the Las Vegas Strip. Six months later, the Notorious B.I.G. was shot dead in Los Angeles, also in a drive-by. No one has been charged in either slaying.
Moving on
In the years after the mayhem at the Quad, Rosemond tried to dispel persistent rumors that he arranged the attack. He protested his innocence in Vibe magazine and appealed to Shakur, in vain, to cease his public accusations.
In 1996, Rosemond was convicted of drug and weapons offenses and sentenced to five years in prison. Released three years later, he reinvented himself as a talent manager. His turbulent past gave him street cred and helped attract a clientele of rappers to his Czar Entertainment. Two years ago, he was convicted of assaulting a radio disc jockey in Washington, D.C. He remains on probation for the offense.
Sabatino became a fixture in Combs' circle. He went on the road with B.I.G. and joined Combs on his 1997 "No Way Out" tour, helping him stage lavish private parties and land corporate sponsorships.
During the tour, Sabatino used fake credit cards to run up tens of thousands of dollars in charges for hotel suites, limousines and helicopters for the Bad Boy entourage. He was arrested in London and extradited to the U.S. He is serving an 11½-year prison term for wire fraud and racketeering.
In the years after the Quad, Combs transcended hip-hop to become an international celebrity and brand name. He has recorded Grammy-winning rap albums and acted in off-Broadway plays. He hosts a weekly MTV show, owns a restaurant in Atlanta and presides over the Sean John clothing line and the Unforgivable fragrance brand. Forbes magazine last year estimated his income at $23 million.
The New York police investigation into the Quad attack quickly hit a dead end. But federal prosecutors conducting a broad investigation of the rap business have continued to explore the incident and its role in the subsequent string of shootings and killings. Various music-industry figures have been called before a federal grand jury and questioned about what happened that night.
'Set me up'
Two months after Shakur was killed, Death Row Records released his album "The Don Killuminati." It entered the pop charts at No. 1 and sold 800,000 copies in its first week.
The CD cover depicts the rap star nailed to a cross like a martyred prophet. In the song "Against All Odds," Shakur, like a ghost from the grave, calls out those he held responsible for starting the violence:
"I take this war . . . deeply
"Done seen too many real players fall
"To let these [cowards] beat me
"Puffy, let's be honest, you a punk. . . .
"You can tell the people you roll with whatever you want
"But you and I know
"What's goin' on."
Shakur then mentions "a snitch named Haitian Jack" and promises "a payback" to "Jimmy Henchman in due time."
"Set me up, wet me up. . . . stuck me up," he sings.
"But you tricks never shut me up."
Labels:
2Pac,
Biggie,
Chuck Philips,
Hip Hop,
LA Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)