Mike Fancher / Times executive editor
Anonymous sources sometimes essential

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

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@seattletimes.com. More columns at www.seattletimes.com/columnists