In the Sept. 6 issue of the L.A. Times, reporter Chuck Philips said that the late Christopher Wallace, aka the Notorius B.I.G., was involved in the death of Tupac Shakur in 1996.

This information has shocked the world because it is hard to believe — especially considering that all of Philips’ sources are anonymous.

Philips’ story claims to be factual, but he has nothing that solidly verifies it. Only he knows for sure if he fabricated information or not.

So what is the public to believe?

That’s the question at hand.

Do you trust journalists? Should you trust journalists? We are already faced with these questions as it is, and Philips reports a story like this?

The job of a journalist is to report on a topic based on information given. Philips claims that members of the Southside Crips, who are not identified individually in the story, told him the information that shocked not the just hip-hop community, but all music lovers. So Philips did his job, right?

This is a situation where the journalist has to make the decision of whether or not to run a story without having named sources.

Philips put himself on the line when he put the story out because his sources are questionable.

That’s where he made his mistake. He should have never come out with the information without some hard evidence.

This raises questions about his journalistic credibility as well as that of the L.A. Times.

Even though this is a story that every music lover has interest in, it simply should not have run at all.

It’s irresponsible and damages the credibility of journalists everywhere.

Journalists use anonymous tips all the time, but we know better than to base an entire story on them, especially when the story implies that you’ve “solved” a murder case.

Bottom line?