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.