Is the NYT fentanyl kitchen a pirate?

By Ivabelle Arroyo

Natalie Kritoeff and Paulina Villegas worked for four months to gain access to a fentanyl kitchen in Sinaloa. According to their account, they were there for a few minutes, described what they saw and took some photographs before fleeing because they were warned that the authorities were close by.Is this story published in the New York Times is it real or is it a false report? 

Initial support: the medium and its standards

For starters, the journalists work for a recognized media outlet, the New York Times. This works in their favor, since it implies a minimum editorial filter and a professional incentive to avoid serious errors: they could lose their jobs. The newspaper claims that there are also recordings. Is this enough? Read on.

Sheinbaum's questioning

Claudia Sheinbaum, the president, has questioned the report, arguing that the procedures described do not match what she knows about criminals on the run. According to the reporters, the kitchen was improvised for an urgent order, something Sheinbaum considers inconsistent with the usual practices of drug traffickers. Her point is relevant as she has official information about laboratories and criminal methods, but is that enough for us? Read on. 

The real question

The debate should not be about whether we believe the New York Times or Sheinbaum. Nor is it about whether there are fentanyl labs in Sinaloa. The crucial question is: does the reporting hold up? Journalism, unlike other information providers, has methods to verify that the journalist is not lying and has not been deceived.

In this case, the report allows us to consider several hypotheses:

1. The kitchen exists and the cooks are real. 
2. The kitchen is an invention of journalists to deceive. 
3. The kitchen is a deception to journalists.

Journalistic methods and verification

Fortunately, journalism has the tools to dispel doubts, and many of these methods are (or should be) in plain sight in the published piece itself, especially in testimonial reports. Reporting should always answer the basic question of a critical reader: how does the journalist himself know that what he sees, hears or narrates is true? 

The New York Times reporters' piece is a chronicle that describes the following: 

• The reporters get a contact that leads them to a fentanyl kitchen after months of failed attempts.
• The kitchen is in an enclosed space, where people wearing masks and gloves handle powders, blue masses and liquid substances on fire.
• They are shown a blue pill, those who are there claim they are drug resistant and allow photographs to be taken.
• The journalists are there briefly and flee with everyone for fear of being discovered.

Although this offers a good portrait of the moment, but I have many doubts about its rigor. How do journalists know that what they see is fentanyl? That their contacts tell them the truth? What cook is a cook? Well, by following the methods that give journalism credibility against testimony from other types of broadcasters. For example: 

Verification of sources. Journalists must provide the elements that give them certainty that the contacts and cooks are real. It can be official information, additional testimonies or even better, the follow-up of these sources for a longer period of time so that they can prove the activity.

Confirmation of materials. It is crucial to determine whether observed powders, blue masses and liquids are indeed fentanyl or precursors. This can be accomplished by asking cooks how they verify the purity of their products, consulting scientists or authorities, or investigating similar procedures outside of illegal contexts. 

Contrast with external data. Context is essential: was there really an operation that day that justified the improvisation of the lab? Is it possible to cook fentanyl with a mouthpiece? Can resistance to this drug really develop? These questions do not require courage to enter a lab; they require official sources and scientific studies.

Journalism cannot be based only on direct perception and testimonies from one side. I do not know if the journalists were deceived or not because they do not give me, in the piece, elements that tell me how they came to the conclusion that they were seeing a laboratory. Credibility depends on complementing the chronicle with external information. When this is not done, the guild is exposed to valid questions that the authorities can use to discredit us.

The way things are

We cannot state whether the fentanyl kitchen described is real or not because the journalists did not provide sufficient elements to back up their report. However, this does not mean that the report is false. To prove it, we would also need more information, which Sheinbaum has not provided either. The president could show images and data on previously discovered laboratories to compare with what the reporters show. That is something she has not done.

In short, we still don't know if the cuisine is pirate or authentic, and the responsibility falls on both parties. Things as they are, no way.  

🎧 Audiocolumn

0:00

/335.616

1×

The opinions expressed are the responsibility of the authors and are absolutely independent of the position and editorial line of the company. Opinion 51.