A couple of hours ago, I lamented the fact that much of today’s Globe repeats stories or opinions that have already appeared elsewhere (including here at BMG). But then I praised a story by Maria Sacchetti that revealed the identities of the FBI agent who shot Ibragim Todashev and the two MA state troopers who were with him.
Turns out, I was perhaps too quick with my praise. Because, as I subsequently learned, those names had already been published nine days earlier, and had apparently been obtained in the same way (by unredacting badly redacted PDFs), on a blog called The Boston Marathon Bombings. The May 5, 2014 post revealing the FBI agent and state troopers’ identities is here, and a post explaining how the un-redaction was done is here.
Sacchetti’s Todashev story was a big deal in yesterday’s Globe – front page, above the fold. But you have to turn to page A6, and read waaaaay down the page in a very long story, to find the single, grudging mention that, in fact, the Globe did not break this story.
McFarlane has previously been publicly identified in a blog about the Boston Marathon case.
That’s it. No link. No mention of the title of the blog so that an interested reader could go look up the original post. No mention that the method the Globe used to identify McFarlane is apparently exactly the same as what the blogger had already done. And no mention at all of the fact that the blog also identified the two MA state troopers.
I pointed this out to Sacchetti on Twitter. She responded as follows (punctuation edited):
I don’t see any independent verification on that blog. Do you? We don’t work that way. We checked court records and other records. We verify facts first — and that took weeks. Period.
OK, that is a fair point – the Globe did indeed undertake more independent verification than the original blog post. Which raises two questions: (1) did the verification via court and other records of facts already disclosed elsewhere merit banner front-page treatment? And (2) would it really have killed the Globe to mention the name of the blog? [UPDATE: Sacchetti’s response to this question, via Twitter: “I’m not referring our readers to anything unverified. Nothing in our story came from a blog.”]
At least in the Globe’s coverage of the Charlie Baker/General Catalyst/Chris Christie pay-to-play story, the Globe has consistently mentioned that the story originated at PandoDaily. So it’s not actually that hard.
Was going to still give the Globe/Sacchetti credit for digging up the “stormy” record of the shooter with the Oakland PD, but it turns out all that was reported (complete with links) on this same blog way back on May 5.
It’s a legit question whether or not the Globe first got this story from this blog, I don’t recall ever reading about the unredacting pdf’s before. But even if they didn’t, two weeks is a snails pace to verify this stuff.
that, although the blog did name the agent and also recount the “stormy record” of an Oakland cop with the same name, the blog didn’t 100% confirm that it was the same guy, whereas the Globe did. But, again, is that a front-page story? I mean, maybe it is. But there is no doubt that the Globe was not the first to name the agent and the troopers, yet you’d never know that from most of the reports on the story.
When reading the story yesterday, I did note this part as unusual:
When was the last time you a newspaper had to go to birth records to confirm the identity of a person who’s name was on another government document like this? Normally, a phone call or two is enough verification. I suspected that this conspicuous research overkill was likely a response to furious push back from the feds against running these guys names. Now it looks more like window mere dressing to cover that fact that they took this story from somewhere else (a blog, gasp!) and gave them next to no credit.
If Sacchetti want to answer more questions, it should be made clear whether or not she first read the names, and method of obtaining them, on the marathon bombing blog.
First, I agree with Sacchetti, the Globe has obligations a blog doesn’t have. Long may it be that way.
But I can’t imagine unredacting is standard procedure. Who came up with that?
And finally, to me the big question here is why a cop with a “troubled history” was allowed to join the FBI. That part is more important than his name, which is an overrated piece of this story. His name doesn’t matter so much as law enforcement’s collective shrug at what he did.
As others have explained elsewhere, this is not exactly rocket surgery. It is trivial to unhide text that was actually never really redacted.
… but it’s also ethically shaky. The source clearly intended not to reveal this information, but they “improperly created” the redaction, and (more importantly, I suspect) a blog tapped in, so the Globe went ahead.
Imagine the Globe writing that a government official improperly didn’t lock his desk, so they looked inside it. This is the same thing.
Do the means justify the ends? We’ll see.
it’s the same thing if the Globe was already properly in the office without the official being there. Otherwise, not the same.
Maybe it’s me, but it seems like every reply I get to every analogy I make points out the flaw in the analogy. Analogies are inherently flawed.
MY POINT STANDS THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I was a little cranky. Sorry, long week.
for the errors of government officials.
Their ethical obligations are quite otherwise, in fact.
We’re calling it an error because it was easy to break, but the source did not intend to reveal this information.
So then it becomes an ethical dilemma — what is being hidden? It is worth the ethical compromise? I don’t know the answer, but my opinion is that the name isn’t really worth much here. It feels a bit like they’re throwing this guy under a bus (which he might deserve, I don’t know).
What “ethical dilemma”? The government is attempting to hide the truth of what happened. Discovering, verifying, and publishing that truth is what journalism is for. The officer’s name matters because it’s the first step towards connecting the shooter to his long and disturbing past.
I’m also struck by learning of yet another government thug who’s parent (in this case, his father) was also a cop. I’m sorry, but public safety is NOT a family business.
I don’t think Aaron McFarlane was “allowed” to join the Boston office of the FBI, I think he was recruited. I think his troubled past is viewed as an asset, not a liability.
The FBI statement quoted in Ms. Sanchetti’s piece says:
In my view, “continued media scrutiny” is VERY MUCH in the public interest. I also think the best way to protect agents and families from risks for reprisal is to control and manage their behavior so that such episodes don’t happen.
If Mr. Todashev had not been executed in his home in a hail of gunfire from Mr. McFarlane, neither Mr. McFarlane or his family would be at any risk at all.
In my view, the content of this story is more important than who got it when. I’m glad the Globe verified the facts, and I join scout in speculating that the Globe faces intense pressure to bury this story.
I’m not sure the feds are the only sources of that pressure. As we learn more about the government thugs who killed Mr. Todashev, the disinterest of Ms. Coakley becomes more striking. It won’t surprise me if we learn that the Coakley campaign is also applying serious heat to bury this story.
My bottom line is that in my view, Ms. Sacchetti has added enormous value to this story by being so rigorous in her fact-checking.
were contributing to a cover up of this murder. The FBI agent/shooter has a Jared Remy-like list of charges and close calls tying him to the infamous Oakland Police “Riders”.
Respectable journalists like David Boeri not only failed to do a thorough check of the names they had, but hid these names from the public.
We know he was shot, by law enforcement. Details have been unacceptably slow to emerge, but that’s not exactly a coverup.
What would it take for you agree that this was an attempted coverup?
Mr. Todashev was killed by a fusillade of shots while in police custody, nearly a year ago. Government authorities, who have eagerly leaked or published all sorts of information about Mr. Todashev, the marathon bombers, and the associates of these players, have steadfastly refused disclosing virtually ANY information about the circumstances of this apparent execution. Instead, we hear the usual excuses and rationalizations that always greet efforts to learn more about apparent police misconduct.
I am reminded of the layer upon layer of lies and distortions that the same authorities offered during the Bulger fiasco. Perhaps if SOMEBODY in government demonstrated any real concern about the truth of what happened, then the stench wouldn’t be so bad.
I note, in particular, the disinterest of our current AG.
I’ve never looked at this story and wondered “Who pulled the trigger?” In my view, the collective law enforcement establishment (cops, FBI, DAs, etc.) pulled the trigger. The more important question is why. We need a full airing of the why; it’s not adequate that we’re getting the who. In fact it feels a bit like a setup of the guy involved.
I agree with you that the “collective law enforcement establishment” is the story here, not Mr. McFarlane. I certainly hope that this is the beginning, not the end, of the Globe’s investigation.
If so, why was he working as a field agent for the FBI? If not, why was he collecting a sizable pension from Oakland after only working there a few years?
So for that reason I’m glad the Globe went with above-the-fold, front-page treatment.