An indie journalist in Worcester avoids having to identify his confidential sources — for now

An independent news organization called This Week in Worcester may be compelled to identify its confidential sources as the result of a libel suit brought against the outlet by a city police officer. First Amendment watchdog Andrew Quemere posted about the case on Bluesky.

Please support this free source of news and commentary by joining my Patreon for just $6 a month. Supporters receive a weekly newsletter with exclusive content.

According to Brad Petrishen of the Telegram & Gazette of Worcester, Superior Court Judge Gillian Feiner decided not to force This Week publisher Thomas Marino to identify his sources at this time, and she urged Marino and the plaintiff, Officer Thomas Duffy II, to work out a pre-trial settlement. Feiner did not rule out requiring Marino to identify his sources later on.

As Petrishen observes, the Massachusetts Senate recently approved a shield law that would provide some protections for reporters to keep their anonymous sources confidential. That proposed law is currently the subject of negotiations between Senate and House members. It would not provide an absolute shield; rather, it would specify a balancing test that judges would apply in determing whether the information being sought was important enough to warrant forcing a journalist to violate their promise of anonymity. The effect would be to formalize protections already in place that stem from state court precedents.

Petrishen writes in the Telegram & Gazette:

“It’s just not clear to me that the public interest would be served by disclosing the identity of these [sources] now,” said Feiner, who did not issue a ruling, instead directing both sides to see if they can reach an agreement before depositions begin.

This Week in Worcester publisher Thomas Marino is being sued by Thomas Duffy II, president of Worcester’s patrolmen union, for $10 million over allegations Marino made “multiple false and defamatory statements” about Duffy in 2025.

The identity of confidential sources is expected to play prominently in the case, and Marino’s lawyers filed a motion prior to depositions requesting that questions about confidential sources be off-limits unless Duffy is able to prove them necessary to pursue his claims.

Marino has been a harsh critic of Duffy, writing a commentary in May 2025 headlined “Worcester’s Most Violent Cop Wants City Councilor Investigated.” The piece relies heavily on confidential sources, including this excerpt:

According to sources inside both city and state government, Duffy is one of the Worcester Police officers on the so-called Brady List.

District attorneys across the country compile a Brady list. The police officers that appear on this list are those which the district attorney won’t put in front of a jury or judge because their track record of lying on police incident reports or in testimony, which makes them ripe for being discredited by defense attorneys.

What’s confusing is that the commentary is labeled “Editor’s Note: This piece appears in our Columns section and includes commentary and/or analysis. The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of This Week in Worcester.” Yet the T&G identifies Marino as the publisher, and in his Muck Rack profile he’s identified as the editor. In any case, labeling a piece as “opinion” is no protection in a libel case if that piece contains factual assertions that can be proven or disproven.

The Duffy case is reminiscent of a 2002 libel suit brought against The Boston Globe by Dr. Lois Ayash for incorrectly identifying her as the “leader of a team” that signed off on an overdose of an experimental chemotherapy drug that was given to two patients at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. One of those patients was Globe reporter Betsy Lehman, who died as a result of the overdose. The judge ordered that the Globe reveal its confidential sources. When the paper’s lawyers refused, the judge ruled that Ayash would win by default.