There has been, as some media observers have noted, a question as to why the Boston Herald’s apology on Wednesday referred to John Tomase’s “sources” when his original story referred only to a “source.” Today Tomase puts that to rest. In fact, he had no sources, if by “source” you mean someone who gives you information that you can use in a story.
Look, the Herald has apologized. Editor Kevin Convey has offered a personal mea culpa. And Tomase himself writes, “Turns out I could not have been more wrong. I regret it, and that’s something I’m going to have to live with for the rest of my life.” So there’s no need to unload on the guy. He says he’s going to keep covering the Patriots. It will be interesting to see how that works out.
Still, there are a few things in Tomase’s piece that are worth highlighting and questioning.
1. What stopped Tomase from tracking down a first-hand source? Tomase says he wishes he hadn’t relied on anonymous sources for such an important story. But the anonymity isn’t as troubling as his admission that he didn’t talk with a single source who had direct knowledge of the Patriots’ videotaping the Ram’s walk-through before the 2002 Super Bowl. This section screams out:
One that I trust said he had been told the walkthrough was taped. A second said he had been told the same thing, but neither had seen a tape.
So Tomase talked with two sources who said they were “told” about the incident. Well, who told them? Wouldn’t they have been the keys to the story? He says he was under some competitive pressure from the New York Times, but shouldn’t he have kept trying to get an eyewitness account — especially when his sources were suggesting that they had heard such an account?
2. No, Tomase shouldn’t violate his promise of confidentiality. A few critics, including me, have suggested that Tomase and the Herald should consider outing Tomase’s source if they conclude that the source had deliberately fed him misinformation. Tomase turns that self-righteously on its head, writing:
There has been a clamoring for me to identify the sources used in my story. This I cannot do. When a reporter promises anonymity, he can’t break that promise simply because he comes under fire. I gave my word, and the day I break that word is the day sources stop talking to me.
Given Tomase’s description of the way the story unfolded, then no, of course he shouldn’t reveal his sources, because they weren’t trying to set him up. They were passing along rumors that they apparently believed to be true — indeed, as I’ve already said, they weren’t even sources in the proper sense of the word. It was Tomase’s decision to type up those rumors before he had finished checking them out.
3. Where were the editors? Convey’s “Editor’s Note” is solid and unequivocal, but also detail-free. What if any role did he play before Tomase’s story was published? What about the sports editor, Hank Hryniewicz? Did they know how thin Tomase’s sourcing was? Did they think about hitting the brakes — or did they pour on the gasoline instead? And what steps have they taken to make sure a story this unsourced doesn’t make its way into print again?
Significantly, the Patriots saga is still playing out. Matt Walsh is flapping his gums, and Sen. Arlen Specter is flapping his arms. If Tomase is still the Patriots beat writer, how is he going to cover that?
A great journalist once told me, “Access is overrated.” I suspect that Tomase is going to be putting that maxim to the test.
