How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

Both Fainaru-Wada and Williams have been making media appearances to promote the new paperback version of their book. They are now presenting "new" material and seem to be doing everything they can to generate sales and put money in their pockets. Some of this new material has already appeared in the Chronicle and on SI.com. I'm sure their book deal requires such promotional activity by both of them. Here's the question. Who is it that really controls their agenda? Is it the Chronicle? The book publisher? Do you really think that their true motive is the "public's right to know" at this point? Who cares about the increase in shoe size of Barry Bonds over the course of the last 20 years? Wow! From a 10.5 to a size 13 in twenty years! That means absolutely zero to me. Do these two guys present any any scientific references to support this incredible phenomenon they have discovered? The reality is that my own shoe size has increased from a 9 to a 10.5 over the last 20 years. I've also gained 35 lbs. Is this type of reporting supposed to be considered journalism? Are top notch reporters also trained to sensationalize like this as well? Is it possible that this type of writing may be the idea of the publisher? Is it not obvious that somebody intimately involved with these guys is trying to cash in on this story?

creamora

 

I have like 10,000 words to write tonight, so I'm about to get bogged down but tell me this.
A therapist is treating a patient and the patient tells the psychiatrist that he is going to kill someone and if the therapist believes it be to credible, he is required to break confidentiality and tell the police. But in that same scenario and that person called the paper and they did a story and made a promise of confidentiality, they have no obligation to tell the police, as a matter of fact the paper would make the argument that they are protecting their source and would have an ethical obligation not to tell the police the name.
How does that fly?
And do you not see the disparity in saying that things should be done in the open, but then say it doesn't apply to yourself or any working journalist?

 

At this point, how can we completely trust ANYONE'S version of the story?

And this comes from someone who, the more I think about it, the more I realize that in a world where the media was seen as quite complicit in the Steroid Era that begat McGwire and Sosa's Summer of Fraud, the Chronicle guys may have felt they simply couldn't sit on the story.

 

Kindred,

The Fainaru-Wada and Williams book came out in March of 2006. However, it took at least a year for them to write the book and don't forget that they received a substantial cash advance from the publisher in early 2005. So, they published their "selection" of Barry Bond's testimony in the Chronicle in December of 2004 and then immediately went to the book publishers and signed a book deal which included a nice cash advance. Once they had the advance money in the bank, they took a sabbatical from the Chronicle and began to write the book on a full time basis. Hmmm. Is this when the "public's right to know" may have taken a back seat? At what point did the publisher begin to contact the talk shows to book appearances so they could promote book sales? Who's the conductor of this orchestra?

creamora

 

Ragu,

Are you saying that the two Chronicle reporters simply did journalism the "right way" and enriched themselves at the same time? Hmmm. So, you fully support and agree with all of the decisions that they have made? Just curious.

creamora

 

OK, so Ragu, here's my other pause in this.
As soon as Ellerman accused the prosecutors of leaking the material, the two reporters KNEW that was a lie, knew that their colleagues were reporting a charge that was untrue, knew that they knew more than the other people at the Chronicle did, and they didn't report it. A big piece of that day's story -- in fact, the ONLY piece of that day's story -- was kept from the public because of promises made to a guy who these two people knew was telling a gross public lie.
What public interest is served there?

 

The problem is that they allowed information that they knew was untrue -- the prosecutors are leaking -- to be reported. (If they allowed that information to be reported in the Chronicle, then a whole lot of somebodies should be fired.) That to me is a huge ethical lapse. Their stories about the BALCO trial were necessarily incomplete. That to me is a huge professional nonfeasance. And I think I'm reading you wrong, but are you arguing at the end of the above that what the two of them did was good because it forced Ellerman to do what he did?

 

The two Chroncile reporters obviously aided, abetted and had full knowledge of Ellerman's many illegal activities. That is not in dispute. Should Fainaru-Wada not be considered an accomplice to the crimes simply by not coming forward? Larry McCormack stated publically that the reason he came forward was because he didn't want to be charged with a crime. What was that crime that he feared being charged with? Having knowledge of Ellerman's criminal activity and not coming forward with the information. He did not want to be charged with being an accomplice. Don't forget that McCormack was a police officer for fifteen years. It seems clear to me that Mark Fainaru-Wada is an accomplice to the multiple felonly crimes committed by Troy Ellerman.