Of the more than 24,000 words The New Yorker printed in Lawrence Wright’s diatribe on the Church of Scientology, two reduced the piece to the murky bottom of tabloid journalism: “unnamed sources.” Wright unveiled a pair of shadowy “Anonymous” sources who came forward with a story to tell and The New Yorker trumpeted its “coup” in a press release—shining the spotlight on those ”unnamed sources” known only to Lawrence Wright.

But no sooner was the ink dry on Wright’s story than those newly crafted allegations vanished into thin air. So too did the “Anonymous” sources behind it all.

In reality, behind-the-scenes sources in stories like these are almost always available to other journalists on a background or off-the-record basis. But these were unaccountable tattletales with no names, no faces and no way for anyone to know if they are credible or even exist at all.

No sooner was the ink dry on Wright’s story than those newly crafted allegations vanished into thin air. So too did the “Anonymous” sources behind it all. The Church informed The New Yorker that the information Wright’s invisible sources unloaded was patently false and merely a rehash of reconstituted lies conjured up by a cadre of anti-Scientologists. But, of course, Wright and The New Yorker didn’t care and published it all anyway because they oh-so-desperately needed a “hook” for their otherwise utterly flat “profile” on Paul Haggis. 

In reality, the whole business attributed to Wright’s disappearing sources stems from a failed smear campaign that began in 2009. It was spearheaded by an embittered crew of anti-Scientologists led by husband-and-wife anti-Scientologists Marc and Claire Headley. They, none-so-coincidentally, are also Anonymous—as in card-carrying members of the cyberterrorist/hate group of the same name.

The Headley story lays out as follows: The couple’s plan hinged on a get-rich-quick scheme—namely filing his-and-her lawsuits against the Church. At which point they called upon fellow Anonymous members to hit the Internet and stir up a little hate speak in support.  At the same time the couple enlisted others in the Gang That Can’t Think Straight—the likes of Marty Rathbun, Jeff Hawkins, Tom DeVocht and Amy Scobee—to whine about their cause on the lunatic fringe.

When at last the Headleys stood before the judge, their visions of life on easy street were extinguished with a drop of the gavel.  For the federal district court judge not only dismissed their cases on their merits and with prejudice, she ordered them to pay the Church more than $40,000 in legal costs.

But there is another wrinkle in the Headley story because during his case, he had to admit under oath a few of his earlier “indiscretions.” Specifically, that he had sold lies to tabloids for cash and how much he’d been paid for them. One $10,000 check came courtesy of the disgraced and now defunct News of the World. (Yes, that News of the World—the 168-year-old paper that stopped its presses for good amidst the biggest media scandal of a generation.) So when the couple shuffled out of court they not only owed $40 grand, but with Headley’s anonymity as a “tabloid source” blown for good, suddenly those tabloid paydays dried up, too.

Wright did not reveal that in the course of researching his article he had crossed the line of professionalism, cozying up to his sources. Unless leisurely South Texas lunches at outdoor cafés with cult guru and village psychotic, Rathbun, don’t qualify as “cozy.”

It was game, set and match.

But like the sore losers they are, the Headleys couldn’t just walk away with what infinitesimal dignity they had left. Enter Lawrence Wright. The couple offered to serve as the writer’s self-corroborating witnesses for anything anti-Scientology. In return, Wright included their fabricated story in his New Yorker narrative—never mind the whole mess had already been tossed out of federal court.

Soon after, the rest of the Posse fell into formation at The New Yorker staff writer’s doorstep. The parade of inveterate liars included Tom “lying was not wrong unless I got caught…” DeVocht, Amy “I’ve falsely been representing myself for quite some time…” Scobee and Marty “Kingpin” Rathbun, fresh from his Bourbon Street arrest for drunk and disorderly that put him in jail on his honeymoon.

The bottom line: Wright wove into his story information from disreputable characters who have long-established histories of corroborating each other’s lies. Moreover, they have changed their stories numerous times, told increasingly outrageous tales, not to mention extended their own rap sheets with recent arrests.

Nowhere does Wright reveal that the allegations he peppers throughout his article track back to Anonymous sources who are actually defrocked, bitter losers who run to the press every time they concoct a new lie. Nor did Wright reveal that in the course of researching his article he had crossed the line of professionalism, cozying up to his sources. Unless leisurely South Texas lunches at outdoor cafés with cult guru and village psychotic, Rathbun, don’t qualify as “cozy.”

Furthermore, Wright failed to disclose key revelations about the linchpin of the whole sordid affair, Marc Headley:

• How Headley attempted to sell stolen videos to tabloid media outlets and also anonymously posted stolen Church videos on the Internet.
• How Headley is a regular across the Anonymous blogosphere, contributing a steady stream of threatening and offensive messages about the Church.
• How Headley accepted an invitation to an Anonymous junket—an all-expense-paid trip to Germany to attend an Anonymous convention—so he could deliver a hate speech on Scientology.

That Wright well knew the Anonymous connection ran deep among his apostate sources but ignored it is all but the final word on his journalistic integrity. Then again, leave it to Wright and The New Yorker to make participating with Anonymous sound as innocuous as belonging to the Rotary Club.

For the record, Anonymous is the group that recently hacked MasterCard, Visa, PayPal and other institutions. It’s the same one that was the subject of a July 2011 Department of Justice one-day sweep, wherein 35 search warrants were executed, five arrests made in Europe and another 16 in the U.S.

This is the very same group that harasses Scientologists by threatening Churches with bombs and phony anthrax attacks.

That Wright well knew the Anonymous connection ran deep among his apostate sources but ignored it is all but the final word on his journalistic integrity. Then again, leave it to Wright and The New Yorker to make participating with Anonymous sound as innocuous as belonging to the Rotary Club.

In May 2010, Anonymous member Brian Thomas Mettenbrink, 20, received a 12-month federal prison sentence and was ordered to pay $20,000 restitution for his part in a cyberassault against Church websites. During the sentencing, the U.S. district judge categorized the cyberassaults against Scientology as a “hate crime.” In what amounted to a precedent-setting case, the DOJ brought 19-year-old Anonymous member Dmitriy Guzner to justice in November 2009. Guzner was sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison after pleading guilty to participating in the online attack. He was further ordered to pay $37,500 in restitution and went to prison.

Ironically, late last year authorities identified a member of the U.S. military as the source of Anonymous terrorist threats against the Church. His threats required police to be stationed outside the Church’s international headquarters and its Hollywood Church, and to temporarily close a school attended by the children of Scientologists. When apprehended, the individual reportedly admitted he knew nothing about Scientology except what he had read in a book that had inflamed him. The author of that hate-filled book was Marc Headley.

In evidence of the gravity and scope of Anonymous’ terrorist activities, the ongoing federal investigations into the group involve the U.S. Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office Bureau of Investigation.

So the obvious question in all of this: If a task force of federal law enforcement authorities is conducting an ongoing investigation into this self-professed hate group, officially labeling it a terrorist organization—and Wright’s key sources are all directly connected to and in some cases members of this group—why, by any measure of rationality, would a writer for a once prestigious U.S. magazine rely on Anonymous sources with an ax to grind? How could The New Yorker justify headlining its press release with outrageous allegations and fail to reveal all it knew about the sources behind them?

The answer: Lawrence Wright’s entire “Anonymously” sourced affair was simply a marketing gimmick to try to get people to read an intolerably long story nobody would otherwise even thumb through. In the end, Wright and The New Yorker hung their hopes and ultimately their reputations on two small words.

The article itself was a complete sleaze of the English language which, we’ll give them credit for, is something Lawrence Wright and The New Yorker know how to do.