The L.A. Times recently announced its misuse of false documents in its implication that rapper Sean Combs had acquaintances carry out an assault on rapper Tupac Shakur in 1994.
------------------------------------------------------
The investigation was sparked by an article posted on The Smoking Gun, claiming the L.A. Times use sketchy documents as a basis for the March 17 story. Pulitzer Prize writer Chuck Philips, writer of the Tupac story, and his Deputy Managing Editor Marc Duvoisin both apologized. Philips claims a former FBI agent analyzed the documents and said they were authentic. Articles on MSNBC.com and The Smoking Gun point out the source's not-s0-creditible characteristics. According to Philips, he now believes he was "duped."
-------------------------------------------------
What is the lesson here? JOURNALISTS NEED TO TAKE DOCUMENTS SERIOUS. This story raises ethical concerns of how much journalists question the legitimacy of any type of received document. If a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter doesn't further investigate his or her documents, their creditability takes a hit. Not only that, but the fact that Philips is a "winner" and was "duped" only makes me question the serious of other journalists when they review information they've received.
-----------------------------------------------
But what I'm confused about is, how could a former FBI agent believe the documents are real, and The Smoking Gun gather information that they were fabricated? Is this really an error on Philips part, or the FBI's? According to the original L.A. Times story states that they were "relying on information from an unidentified FBI informant and other interviews." Oh really? It was an "unidentified" informant. So much for animosity when the story proves false. No wonder people are becoming frustrated when newspapers don't reveal their sources. The usage of sources reminds me of the ones "unidentified" in the New York Times John McCain story claiming the friendly relationship between McCain and the lobbyist to exist. Were those real sources?
No comments:
Post a Comment