How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

Quote by Chronicle's Bronstein

Kindred and Ragu,

On February 27, 2005, which was two days after the FBI raided the home of Conte in an effort to discover the source of the GJ transcript leaks to Fainaru-Wada and Williams, an article was written by the two reporters
entitled "FBI Raids BALCO Chief's Home, Agent's Seek Clues to ID's of Chronicle Sources." The following is an excerpt from that article.

Chronicle Editor Phil Bronstein said the newspaper would not divulge its sources. "Our response continues to be what it's always been," he said. "We will absolutely protect the integrity and confidentiality of our sources."

Integrity is defined as "adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty."

Now, keep in mind that Bronstein knew in late January of 2005, which is two months after the leak of Bond's transcript, that Troy Ellerman was their source and not Conte.

Knowing what we know now, there is an obvious question that presents itself. Why was Bronstein making this public statement? Do you think Bronstein thought that Ellerman had a high degree of integrity? Could it have been that he thought Ellerman was adhering to moral and ethical principles, had soundness of moral character and was an honest man? Why was Bronstein making this public statement two days after an FBI swat team had raided the home of someone we now know didn't leak the transcripts?

Kindred and Ragu, you're up. I look forward to your logic for argument and continued support of the Chronicle.

creamora

 

I'll end my participation in this examination of Pandora's-box questions by saying three things:

1) I am not fixated on the idea that Ellerman was the only source of the Chronicle's information, including the grand jury transcript;

2) the Conte/Valente legal team's motion for dismissal cited many examples of federal misbehavior that were, by any measure, more damaging to their clients than the publication of grand jury testimony involving crimes for which the clients had already been charged and indicted; yet a federal judge ruled that none of it rose to a level of misbehavior for which a case should be dismissed, and

3) I continue to support the Chronicle's work.

Thank you.

 

My biggest issue with those two is how they attempted to protect someone who circumvented the grand jury process which is designed to protect all of us citizens.

 

Yes, everyone, think of the BIG picture because you don't really want to get into the messy details on this one!

 

Yes, everyone, think of the BIG picture because you don't really want to get into the messy details on this one!

 

Yeah, the same apologist screed ... over and over again.

 

I agree with you on that... but you know what? Do you have any idea how frustrating it was to discuss this case with you a few months ago? You were so sure the leaks were coming from the prosecution, and you wouldn't hear of any other possibility. If somebody raised the thought that maybe the leaks came from somewhere else, you dismissed it as "silly."

Pardon me if I don't now accept your take on things as gospel.

 

Creamora--I must admit your posts on this thread are extremely thought-provoking...clearly you have some knowledge on the subject I continue to believe that the whole story behind the reporting has yet to be played out, and that goes both ways. You add some good insight here.

I don't believe Bronstein was saying Ellerman had 'integrity,' I interpret his comment to mean Ellerman was a quality source, as in, he had something worth reporting.

That said--and I am asking seriously--do you believe no justice was served by this investigation? I'm not sure if you're finding fault strictly with the Chron's reporting, or with the entire investigation and all findings of guilt?

 

Ragu,

Your statement, "At the time of the story you just cited, two of Bronstein's reporters were facing jail time at the hands of a judge and prosecutor who were twisting their arms over revealing a source" is simply WRONG.

The article I referenced was published by the Chronicle on January 27, 2005 and the reporters WERE NOT "facing jail time" at that point in time as you stated. The devil IS in the details as they say. Who knew what and when IS important.

Once again, Bronstein's two reporter's WERE NOT facing jail time when he was quoted in the article I referenced in my previous post.

Do you think that "facts" are important in reporting or are you still determined to look at the big picture and ignore the facts of the matter?

creamora

 

I think justice was served in the BALCO case, however, I don't think that "end justfies the means" approach is acceptable for law enforcement or reporters when serious felony crimes are committed in the process. A series of very serious crimes were promoted by the Chronicle and their reporters. Wonder how many financial perks Fainaru-Wada and Williams received from the Chroncle during this case in addition to the book money?

The BALCO story is basically about "cheating to win." As reporters know, getting a scoop is a competition. As far as I'm concerned, Fainaru-Wada made the decision to use the equivalent of both the "clear and the cream" in his competition to break the BALCO story. The Chronicle, Fainaru-Wada and Willaims were simply "cheating to win" and are guilty of basically doing the same thing the athletes were doing. These reporters need to be punished. It's one thing to not know that what you are doing is a form of cheating. Fainaru-Wada's second dip into the well put him completely over the top. Fainaru-Wada has done damage to all reporters and he needs to be outed for his wrong doing instead of continuing to be promoted as a "hero."

creamora