How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

Easily. Ellerman gave them info on the promise that they'd conceal his name. Each got something out of that deal. The only way they could later report that he was playing the system is to go back on their promise. But you have to remember, the only reason they knew he was playing the system was that he talked to them in the first place, on the condition of anonymity. Assuming that is how it all went down, they kept their end of the bargain. They promised anonymity and they stayed true to their word.

 

1) I don't mean to be glossing over it. We don't know all the details of their dealings with Ellerman. That is all I have said on this thread. You seem to have concluded bad judgment, or worse, unethical behavior, without knowing details. 2) When you offer anonymity for info, you are making judgment calls. So it is never cut and dried the way you would like it to be. They got a hell of a story that lots of people were chasing and could not get their hands on, as a result of their dealings with Ellerman (again, assuming everything they have reported is factually correct). You point out some of the negatives that have come from their granting anonymity, but you neglect to acknowledge that in the grand scheme of things those negatives don't add up to the positive (in my opinion): they reported a story about a topic of great interest to a lot of people that no one else could get at in any other way. As for whether their means justified that end, I still want to know more about their means before pointing a finger.

 

1) You just said you don't know the details (and you can't, because none of us do). And in the next breath you said they executed bad judgment. How can you conclude that without knowing how it all went down? I prefer details about their dealings with Ellerman and how it all went down before pointing fingers. If they executed bad judgment, or did something illegal, I'll be the first to call them on it. But we do not know that to be true.

2) You are reading me all wrong. I don't find them to be heroes. I find them to be good investigative reporters. The heroic thing to me was the fact that they had their principles--they made a promise and were prepared to live up to their words, even at the risk of jail. That takes courage, and it's a quality I'd admire in anyone. I also agree with their principle, itself. A lot of good info of interest to the public, that would remain hidden, can come from sources who need anonymity for various reasons. Before you tell me that steroids in baseball is not Watergate, I will reiterate that the principle is the principle. To have teeth, it has to hold true for the whistle-blower with pure motives, as well as the attorney or government official with a questionable motive. And from a reporter's perspective, often a backhanded motive can still make the "bargain" worth it, because the information is truthful and impossible to get elsewhere.

3) You are focused on the wrong thing. I don't condone the grand jury leaks by people for whom it is illegal to leak testimony. And this isn't about the greater question about what steroids mean to society. The story itself doesn't justify the principle. The principle is the principle. And it is one that is important to our free and open society. Our democracy benefits from a robust, free press that can act as the fourth estate--another check and balance. And as long as investigative reporters break no laws, and don't libel anyone, they should be given all the latitude in the world to dig and write and dig some more to inform the public. It isn't about anyone's judgments about how important each particular story is. Your particular judgment might be that the Balco story didn't matter in any sense of the word. I disagree, and frankly many others did too. But that's not the point. It's about the fact that more info--the truth--is always better for the public at large, than a shadowy underbelly of hidden things and abuses.

In this case, the grand jury leaks were illegal (leaks in and of themselves are not illegal. It is illegal for specific people to leak the info, including officers of the court such as Ellerman). And I have maintained all along that if the reporters did in fact get their info from someone leaking grand jury testimoney illegally (something we didn't know for sure until recently), the leaker should be held responsible if caught. But that has nothing to do with the two reporters. They were not the source of the leaks and they apparently did nothing illegal. They just accepted information, which in and of itself is what a reporter should be doing. There was nothing illegal about the information itself. It was just information. Facts. And it helped them report a story that people were interested in.

THAT is the positive. They reported some truth. And that really IS a positive in my book. It's also something that is more important to a free society than many people here seem to acknowledge.

I won't extent this manifesto longer, but I suggest you find a New Yorker issue from a month or so back that has a story about Putin. It talks about the Russians are manipulating their press to keep the public in the dark about some likely shadowy and scary things being done, including murders of journalists and dissidents. This is one of the things that makes our society special, in comparison.

 

Skipping most of your post, because I'm tired of responding to you. But this is why I really dislike conversing with you on this board. You have done this numerous times: You attribute something to me I never said or implied (in fact, I have stated the exact opposite) and then call me "astonishingly wrong." I urge you--and others--to read every post of mine on this thread. I never stated or even came close to implying that you treat "all would-be sources the same and just go ahead and make a deal." I have said in several posts that the tricky thing with anonymous sources is exactly what you just restated: you have to weigh the credibility of the source, his or her motives, etc. And you have to make JUDGMENT calls. What you just did was make a straw man argument that has nothing to do with what I said, and either outright attributed it to me for others to see, or if that wasn't your intent, left the impression that this is what I was saying. And it rubs me wrong.

So I am going to have to refuse to respond to you, because you have done what you just did a few times on other threads--you attribute something to me that is in stark contrast to what I have been typing over and over again with the implication that you are responding to something I said. It strikes me as bad message board form.

 

Jay, You'll have to ask Almost Famous. He's the Fruit Roll-Ups expert. In fact, he has a basement filled with them and shotgun shells. And what you, and others, are saying makes sense. Thinking about it, my head would explode, if I found out I was getting used that way. And yes, it is a huge story, with a whacked motive for the leak.