"Seattle Times Editorial: Anonymous sources sometimes essential"

Sunday, July 11, 2004

Anonymous sources sometimes essential
By Mike Fancher / Times executive editor
The Seattle (WA) Times
 
 
Today's investigative report on airport security is an exception for The
Seattle Times in that many of its sources are unnamed.
 
The Times tries to avoid anonymous sources in its stories. Readers don't
trust such reporting, and experience shows the press makes its worst
mistakes when it routinely permits sources to speak off the record. 

The exception for us is when vital information can be brought to light only
if we pledge confidentiality to the people who know it. That's the case
today. 

The importance of our report is obvious: At a time of heightened alert, the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is in crisis and ill-prepared
to meet the threat. The genesis of today's investigation was reporting in
The Times in February about TSA problems at Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport. 

"I started getting phone calls from screeners across the country, telling me
that they had similar concerns at their airports," said Times reporter
Cheryl Phillips. "In fact, some just said, change the name and you've
described our airport. It's the same story." 

Phillips saw a national story "but it would be difficult to tell because
most of the TSA employees said they could not be identified. They thought
they would be fired or, at the least, retaliated against. 

"We decided to keep reporting. The idea was that if we could survey a large
number of screeners we would be able to get a better sense of what was
happening, and that would counteract some of the problems of anonymity. 

"As I interviewed folks, I also consistently sought confirmation of specific
accounts. I did this by getting corroboration from other TSA employees and
from documents that were provided me." 

Evidence of an important story was clear, but Phillips would need help
interviewing enough TSA employees. After a month or so, Steve Miletich
joined the project, followed by Ken Armstrong. Christine Willmsen and Alyson
Beery also made calls and interviewed screeners. 

Armstrong said the fears of people being interviewed didn't seem
far-fetched: "Managers at some airports have ordered screeners not to talk
to the media, and a TSA spokesman in Denver asked The Times to stop calling
screeners, saying they weren't allowed to talk to reporters. 

"But for this story, talking to screeners was crucial. They're on the front
line of the country's struggle to prevent terrorists from targeting
airplanes once again. Screeners see security shortcomings firsthand, and can
speak best to morale and other workplace conditions that might jeopardize
their work." 

The reporters focused on two principles, Armstrong said: 

   "1. There's power in numbers. We didn't build this series around one, or
several, or even a dozen anonymous sources. We talked to more than 120 TSA
employees - some named, some not. Most of their stories were so similar that
they allowed us to reach, with confidence, certain broad conclusions. Morale
is low. Risk is high. Change is needed. 

   "2. When researching specific anecdotes, we sought corroboration in a
variety of ways, usually by gathering paper or multiple accounts. 

"For example, a former Boston screener said TSA paid him less than promised.
We didn't take his word for it. Alyson Beery, an investigative intern who
helped with the series, asked him to provide his hiring letter and a pay
stub. He agreed - and the documents bore him out. The documents show that he
was, indeed, promised a higher salary than what he received. 

"Another example: One Houston screener told Cheryl about an incident in
March in which TSA managers allowed dozens of bags to go onto planes without
being screened first. Cheryl didn't just take the screener's word. She
found, and interviewed, two other screeners who also witnessed the security
lapse. In addition, Cheryl obtained a copy of a letter that Houston
screeners wrote to Congress describing what happened." 

Phillips added, "All of this work gave us a much greater confidence level in
the accuracy of the accounts, despite the fact that many individual voices
were anonymous. 

"The screeners and supervisors are the voices that don't get heard in
Congress, or by the public. They are the ones who see what happens every
day. And they describe going home at night worried that something might have
made it through the system. 

"They also described repeated and regular instances of workplace problems -
from pay issues to harassment, and, in many cases, backed up those
assertions with internal documents. 

"I'm not sure we would have been able to tell this story, in all of its
detail, any other way. And I think it's a story that needs to be told." 

Armstrong added, "Anonymous sources hurt credibility. We all know that. If
readers don't know who is saying what, they can't judge the source's
motivation or truthfulness. 

"But sometimes, refusing to use anonymous sources can hurt readers more than
help them. Sometimes, a source has good reason to request anonymity. And
sometimes, what a source says is important - so important that it justifies
granting anonymity." 

If you have a comment on news coverage, write to Michael R. Fancher, P.O.
Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111, call 206-464-3310 or send e-mail to
mfancher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More columns at www.seattletimes.com/columnists


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php


*****************************************