Duggar Family Source Describes In Touch Weekly Reporting As A 'Hit Piece'

I loathe being spun by sources who insist on remaining anonymous. I realize that as a journalist, everyone you speak with has some agenda. But my goal is to try and not let their agenda become the centerpiece of my reporting.

I've written a great deal about the Josh Duggar molestation allegations over the past week and most of my writing has been less about the facts of the sexual abuse and more about the business aspects of the story. For instance, why TLC insists on remaining mum about the future of the show and what they knew about the allegations.

But the more I write about the story, the more I get contacted by "insiders" who have some story to spin. These are some of the same insiders who got both TMZ and People.com to bite on the "Hey, maybe we can do the show without Josh" story.

Tonight someone who asked to be referred to as "close to the family" called pushing the story that the original In Touch Weekly report on Josh Duggar's alleged sexual misconduct - along with the stories that will appear in this week's edition - are nothing but hit pieces coming from a celebrity magazine that was upset they were refused access to exclusive stories from the family.

"The family has had an ongoing relationship with People and that pissed off In Touch," claims the source. The argument is that the reporting is driven less by a desire to get at the truth than it is the need to damage the family because they favored a rival magazine.

Now I have no idea of that is truly the reason In Touch Weekly decided to file a Freedom of Information request to obtain the police report that was at the center of this story in the magazine last week. a representative of the magazine declined to discuss the issue, although I don't take that as any particular proof of guilt or innocence.

It is true that People Magazine seems to have had a very close relationship with the family, which was on the cover of the magazine a number of times as part of "exclusive" stories. Those type of exclusives typically involve some financial payment to the subjects of the story, but I have no idea if that is the case when it comes to the Duggar Family.

But even if the In Touch Weekly reports were driven by revenge or bitterness, what difference does that make? The stories are apparently factual and the person I spoke with didn't dispute the general facts in the case. So I suppose when you can't argue a case on its merits, you move to arguing about the motivation.

Sometimes I hate my job.