Study finds sourcing patterns in Wen Ho Lee coverage

Journalists' use of sources and the effects on news production have been widely studied in media research. Use of official government sources and anonymous sources has been particularly examined in a critical way because of its effects upon journalistic credibility, as well as ethical and legal issues that often result from use of sources. When national security and legal issues are involved, journalists' sourcing use becomes even more complicated. This article analyzes the sources used by The New York Times in its coverage of a legal case involving U.S. national security.The New York Times reporters Risen and Gerth first broke the story of a suspected Chinese spy on March 6,1999. The next day, Wen ho Lee, a 60-year-old Taiwan-born, Chinese-American scientist working at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico was questioned by the FBI. Months later he was indicted on 59 felony counts of mishandling national security information. On Sept. 13, 2000, however, Lee pleaded guilty to just one count and was sentenced to time in prison. The government exonerated Lee of any connection with the W-88 warhead he had been accused of stealing for China. The final count that the prosecutors used was a minor transgression of laboratory rules.1The NewYork Times played an important role throughout the case. In an article in the American Journalism Review, Fleeson wrote that "the Wen ho Lee saga will be remembered as a case study of what can go wrong...when even highly regarded reporters rely on unnamed, inside-the-Beltway sources and leaks about law enforcement investigation," and that The New York Times "uncritically embraced the outlook of investigators in its coverage of the case."2 Scheer of Nation magazine noted that The New York Times uncritically accepted leaks from the Cox committee as truth, and that "the reporters relied heavily on unnamed sources and one named source, Trulock (the chief of intelligence at the Energy Department, added by the author).. .who had been involved in Wen Ho Lee's investigation." He further reported that "Trulock's secret, leaked to The Times' reporters, was taken as unquestioned gospel and formed the basis of the newspaper's claim."3 In its conclusive editor's note, The New York Times, itself, admitted that "We find that we too quickly accepted the government's theory that espionage was the main reason...."4Some articles criticizing the media coverage of the legal case discussed The New York Times' sourcing, particularly its use of leaks from officials. For example, Morse of Time magazine doubted whether the Neiv York Times should have relied on Trulock as a source because "recent affidavits in the case allege that Trulock, then the Energy Department's intelligence director, targeted Lee because of his race."5 Heylin criticized The New York Times for ignoring journalistic integrity when it reported the case "without thoroughly checking the information it received."6 Joshua pointed out that the journalists sensationalized the stories and "allowed themselves to become the mouthpieces of propagandists."7 Sheer said he believed that the leak from the Cox Committee was "a nonevent" that was "never substantiated and was scoffed at by most experts," but was used by the newspaper to "smear a U.S. citizen." Sheer also said Trulock's secret testimony, leaked to The New York Times' reporters, "was taken as unquestioned gospel."8 Mesler, a Washington D.C.-based journalist, pointed out as early as 1999 that the case against Lee had turned out to be "laughably circumstantial, based largely on illegal, politicized Republican leaks," and that some of The New York Times articles were based on illegal leaks about the ongoing investigation.9These accusations invariably questioned the sources used by The New York Times in reporting the case. Of course, there might be other causes that led to the controversial outcome of the investigative coverage, but the sources used appeared to be a key factor. …