An End to Trust: the LA Times Becomes the Latest Victim

Thursday's revelation that the Los Angeles Times and its Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter had been duped into believing forged FBI documents that linked Sean "Puffy" "Puff Daddy" "P. Diddy" Combs to a shooting of the late rapper Tupac Shakur in 1994 is just the latest in a long recent list of sad moments for journalism.

Because now, not only do reporters have to worry about their sources' agendas or abilities to spin, they now also have to be forensic scientists to sniff out the malevolence that leads sources of information to engage in the subtlest and most exquisite forms of deception. Journalists, while sophisticated, skeptical and world-weary, are not scientists; they know not from font and paper dating or analysis of computer vs. typewriter. And I say hurray for that! I would far rather have an experienced, knowledgeable reporter with a gift for reading facial expressions and tone of voice who knows his or her way around a motive to decide what information I receive.

And this is not to take away from the genius of "The Smoking Gun" at ferreting out the fraud. I'm thrilled that this merry band of document experts has the persistence and expertise to let us know when we've been had. But it's just not reasonable to expect all reporters to jump through such hoops when they're on to a story where every other indication is that it's accurate.

And let us also remember that we cannot expect the 24-hour news cycle, the glut of news sources in print, on the air and online, and years of cost-cutting -- which have been particularly deep and damaging at the LA Times -- not to have consequences. The jolly editors and publishers who put on a stiff upper lip and vow always to "do more with less" (unless they quit, as many at the LA Times have done) are stringing us along: you can't do more with less; in fact, you can't even do as much with less. The fact that the LA Times, which has been gutted in recent years, is still coming out with an originally generated front page each day is a miracle.

I am in no way excusing the mistake. Mistakes in reporting are horrible (ask any editor or reporter who has had to compose a front-page correction for a story gone bad) -- and particularly painful when someone's reputation has been sullied.

But, the trust relationship between a reporter and his or her source has been the basis for stories for decades. And while the LA Times continues to investigate its procedures -- and should -- and, one would hope, take steps to try and minimize the likelihood of such a scam happening again, no newspaper or broadcast outlet (witness, CBS and the end of Dan Rather's career due to the last highly publicized episode of forged documents) can guarantee its immunity from fraud.

Reporters are not forensic scientists. They are human beings, who use their smarts, their instincts, their experience and their wisdom to weigh and measure the reliability of what they are told, how much weight to give it, how much of it to use and when. It is inconceivable to me that a seasoned and gifted reporter and his editor, at one of the nation's most respected and plucky newspapers just willy-nilly rushed into print with the Tupac story without thoroughly assessing the raw materials obtained.

I guess what I'm saying is as simple as no one's perfect. And I refuse to conclude that we have reached a time when reporters can't trust their sources because of a few crummy and sad examples of humanity who get a kick out of getting over on us.

Comments

[leftbehind2000]

Absolutely amazing.

They are really pouring the whine over in the journalism department these days, aren't they? First we get Jay Rosen decrying mean ol' John McCain's willful obfuscations: "By demonstrating that you can say false things, refuse to correct them, and pay no real price for it, you dishearten reporters and make their efforts appear futile to themselves."

Now we get Ms. Hochberger wailing over that awful imposition foisted upon the journalistic community - to get one's facts straight.

Boo hoo. If you are not willing to put your big person pants on you should simply get out of the business. Many of us are sick to death of the media's excuses for getting it wrong.

[psanity]

I despair for American journalism, I really do. I'm afraid it's all too easy to believe that Ms. Hochberger is a teacher of "journalism".
Ms Hochberger, either you did not actually read the Smoking Gun piece, or you're wilfully in denial. The Smoking Gun article was well-written, _very_ interesting, and backed up at every step with verifiable evidence. It is, in fact, the kind of article that _should_ be appearing in the LATimes and other major newspapers, but rarely does. This article is a sad indictment of the LATimes reporter precisely because it shows that there were myriad reasons for the reporter to be suspicious of Sabatino.
First, what reporter trusts documents from a source who has done time for forging documents?
What reporter wouldn't check purported FBI documents to make sure they at least conformed to standard for that type of document (and, why not confirm them with the FBI? According to the source, they were court discovery documents, so they weren't secret).
The SG article also makes it fairly obvious that the LATimes reporter used Sabatino as a corroborative source for the documents Sabatino himself provided. (And remember, if he'd checked up on the guy _at_all_, he would have learned Sabatino's history of exacly this type of fraud.)
To break a story that puts people's lives in danger, without the most basic fact-checking, is not just irresponsible -- it should be criminal. If this is the standard you are teaching, it's not journalism.

[anghiari]

Ms. Hochberger,

Factchecking/double/triple...it comes with the job

[Scarabus]

During the modern era, for honest journalists, hasn't the rule always been that you never go with a single source"especially if it's dubious? Especially if the story involves serious accusations of criminal behavior? Bullshards! You always insist on at least one independent confirmation, preferably two or more.

This is not about whether reporters should have the same qualifications or meet the same standards as trained criminal investigators. It's about whether reporters should honor the standards of responsible journalism. And whether editors should insist they do so.

For the L.A. Times to publish that story was a clear violation, not just of the universally recognized (though not universally observed, alas) standards of responsible journalism, but of basic common sense. Yes, I know. Every knowledgeable adult knows. It's easy to pass judgment after the fact. Mud-wrestling in the newsroom can get really messy, leaving everyone besmirched (including, by extension, innocent persons, falsely accused).

To be morally and socially and professionally responsible should always matter more than petty competition about who scoops whom.

[Leota2]

If this blog post says anything about the state of journalism ; it
is that not too many practitioners seem to have the skill set
any more. . . . . They also have too many apologists.
And the L.A. Times is the victim? Isn't the victim be Mr. Combs?
Ms. Hochberger----c'mon . . . .

[jennylens]

The LA Times should be held more accountable. As a 57 year old LA native, who grew up reading it, I vigorously disagree the paper has ANY merit. The "news" is about a small part of the "the industry," i.e., entertainment/arts. My first solo punk rock photo book available in a month. I work closely with many in the news and entertainment media, yet am alienated reading the frivolous articles. A classic shot of mine was published last June. A couple friends caught it. I know tons of people and none of them bother with the LA Times. The political information is beyond superciliously silly.

I love my birth city and am involved in the arts, music, environmental issues, raw foods, yoga and other communities/interests. The LA Times rarely provides any insight how to do what I do on little money and time. Elitist and ONLY for those with tons of money and time (to please their advertisers). I find out about more cool LA news in the NY Times!

Whether it's print, TV, or online, readers have to discern whom to trust. I find valid info from great magazines, authors, consultants, etc online. Being a political junkie, huffingtonpost.com is only one of my many news sources to feed that need.

We've never had more choices. Now is the time to hold traditional news media's feet to the fire. The simplest way? STOP READING THEM. STOP SUBSCRIBING. Nothing else will get their attention!

[TheHandyman]

See Ruth, here is your problem. You mentioned Dan Rather's career being ruined because of forged documents and guess what, there has never been any evidence that says they were forged. And since I know that and many other know that your credability has just taken a hit. You guys have just don't seem to get it. When your report something that is going to cause damage to someones life and reputation you should make damn sure that that everything is beyond a doubt correct . I'm sorry doesn't cut it. A lawsuit for millions should be incentive to make sure. The LA Times along with every other paper except for Knight-Ridder, printed every lie the Bush administration told to justify the invasion of Iraq. Where were the ethics, the fact checks the need to keep the people informed of the truth then.

Dan Rather had his career ruined not by facts or forgeries, it was done for expediency and political reasons. The protections given to the press by the Constitution demand that you do your jobs and do them well, otherwise you wind up where you are, unemployed and unbelieved!

[maddogbitesback]

Dan Rather was ruined but he was right.

[nomobull]

isn't there an old saying about believing half of what you see none of what you hear ,trust only facts you can put you hands on and even then check it out. its time the media start practicing this and stop spreading lies that have ruined reputations, caused people to receive death threats or could get an innocent put in jail.

[PerryWhite]

The victim was not the LAT, but Mr. Combs.

[kfdan]

Journalism has become the bedrock of the ill trained and ill equipped to handle investigations. In fact, investigative journalism is dead pretty much except where great and real journalists are hanging in on the fringe, Greg Palast for example.
Programs like Democracy Now where real journalism takes place are not main stream broadcast and the main stream media is owned by 5 or 6 corporations with their own policies and interest in what their news divisions spew out as news. Hence, we have a system that hires people as journalist who are interested in being celebrities, stars and influential commentators ~ NOT JOURNALISTS!

[TheHandyman]

Exactly!

[GrainOSand]

Tupac, I miss your voice. A void exists where you stood that none can fill.

Dear Mr. President....

Check the ambitions of a Ridah named Hillary!

The people are coming for you Bush and you will pay. Everything you owe!

Barack Obama is looking to do something about all the Brenda's out there and he is telling us all to keep our heads up, those living Thug Life as well as those who get around other blocks than My Block where predators roam and the vile and greedy looked to hand out sub-prime loans like government cheese..

All eyez on you Barack.

[GWBushIsANitwit]

Glenn Greenwald has done more worthwhile reporting on the Iraq War and the various depredations of the criminals in the Bush Administration than the entire staffs of the New York Times, the LA Times, and the Washington Post put together, so the "staffing" issue seems like a complete red herring to me. The real problem with American journalism these days is that most of the people who are supposed to be practicing it are not.

[maddogbitesback]

GWBush - I cannot but agree with your monicker though it is a bit soft.

The problem with American journalism is that people don't want o read the trutyh. And since the people who own papers have to sell them they give them what the reader wants. Truth is not relevant to many papers. If it were the American people would have rioted when G W Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court. I thought the majority determined who won in an election. It does in a democracy and that is the point. America is no longer free. It is in debt up to its eyeballs (to China and Dubai) and it is weak. It cannot even get to-gether the free world but resorts to the euphmism of Coalition of the Willing. It bribed such powers as as it could to allow their name to be used. Six of the coalition had no army whatsoever.

[AnninCA]

Nice article. I so agree about the gutting of the reporting staff. This is so obviously going to affect the ability of people to trust any news source.

[MichaelDeane]

This is kind of a whopper, no?

A confluence of issues has created a credibility issue for journalism. As Mark Hertzgaard pointed out, journalism has evolved from a middle class profession to one where journalists are now hugely compensated and socializing with those whom they are supposed to be reporting on. It is hard to speak truth to power when you are busy sucking up to it.

Journalists see themselves as stars, selling themselves. So the Michael Isikoffs, Bob Woodwards and others appear on TV promoting their latest book or raising their profile. Journalism is lost in the shuffle. Woodward saves stories for his next book. Or he makes them up (Veil)!

My father was a journalist, he was friends with IF Stone and I went to J school--the Newhouse School. We learned to be careful and to double and triple check facts.

Those standards are gone. No one at Fox News could get through that program. Many like Judith Miller are simply in over their heads, intellectually incapable of understanding the motives and subtext of those whom are her sources.

Broadcast journalism does not exist. TV entertains and newsmagazines like Current Affair have morphed into the Insider where there are NO boundaries. A reporter interviews another reporter as a source and rumor gets into the public zeitgeist as fact.

Good journalism requires the long view, not the quick rush to judgment of those ill-prepared reporters seeking instant stardom, fame and credibility.

[GrainOSand]

So nothing has changed? It is still about the money is what I come away from your comment with. I am convinced that as long as greed drives a wreck is inevitable, becuase greed is a lead foot when at the will (wheel) of a human, that always likes to go fast throwing caution to the wind -- witness the wreck that is today's reporting environment. Capitalism has some great benefits but is also has flaws. Perhaps one of the candidates will begin to address some of the flaws of our "great" Capitalist Democracy, or perhaps not?

[AnninCA]

I agree about the "stars." So much of what gets discussed on blogs, too, really has no real news behind it. My fave are the articles about rumors. *haha

[larry278]

The NYT isn't a newspaper of record anymore. The LA TIMES, which still is considered to be one of America's newspapers, might descend back into being a regional daily & nothing more. Will a new newspaper of record replace the NYT & possibly the LAT as a newspaper of record. The HUFFINGTON POST is well placed to become the USA's 1st internet, daily newspaper of record. I wonder if other internet dailies will try to become newspapers of record. Are there any daily papers with the ambition, circulation, money & resources which might join the ranks of America's newspapers of record? Maybe "Today;s Papers" in SLATE or HP will tell us if that happens.

[bernss]

Looking at Ms. Hochberger's bio: she teaches journalism students. No wonder journalism is in the pits. To excuse the LA Times is appalling.