How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

21 says, With regard to Bonds, do you feel W/FW's reporting and subsequent book were accurate? In your opinion, did the reporters indeed 'get it right'?

I think the Chronicle reporters may have gotten much of what they reported about Bonds to be right. However, I also think they got much of what they reported wrong. In short, if these two reporters had ever learned to use the word "allegedly", their marks for reporting would be much higher in my opinion. They reported a lot of "facts" that are simply not true. These two reporters are not God and neither is the Chronicle. They have both made mistakes in their reporting of the BALCO story and they both need to be held accountable. That's one person's opinion.

creamora

 

EF (and congrats on the new gig, nice stars)--Not arguing, but trying to understand: How can we first defend their right to do their job with confidentiality, and then demand that they put aside that confidentiality for our benefit?

They have to know that their silence will cause many to assume the worst...right or wrong, they'll have to live with that, professionally and personally. I just don't know how we can require each other to reveal the details of our work, and still defend our right to protect our work.

 

OK, I'll get off this. But, Elliotte, the question is not about baseball. The question is, do we value a press free to report without governmental oppression? In that sense, the NYT, WaPo, and SF Chron are all in the same boat.

 

The answer is no, because those stories and this one differ a great deal both in importance and in how the information was obtained. We know now that the Chronicle guys were (knowingly or unknowingly) part of an attempt by Ellerman to get his client a mistrial in that they knew that his accusations of leaks by the government were incorrect. If there is a parallel with the NYT, it's with Miller and Gordon's pre-war reportage, and we damn sure ought to know how that ever made print, and we're learning.
Dave -- This is just flawed reporting, at best. Neither these two, nor Judy Miller, have a consitutional right to be part of a dirty-tricks operation.

 

And the problem we're left with is that in the last couple years both the NYT and SF Chron. through questionable judgement have given journalism a black eye and potentially hurt efforts to gain a federal shield law.

21 is probably right. The Chronicle doesn't have to explain itself. Nor did Mark McGwire have to explain himself. Unfortunately, in both cases we're left to draw our own conclusions based on the available information. So no Hall of Fame for the Chronicle, either.

 

I'm not arguing "importance" of stories. There's no comparison. One's about toys, the other's about war. What I'm arguing is the principle of a press free to report without the government's foot on its throat. To me, the principle applies whether a newspaper is dealing in home runs, violation of civil rights, or WMD's.

I guess I have a blind spot in this. Fenian, for whom I have great respect, sees the reporters as part of a dirty-tricks operation. I don't. If they were, they'd have published the Bonds' testimony and then -- THEN -- Ellerman would picked up the cue and filed his motion for dismissal. Instead, Ellerman's motion came 5 weeks BEFORE the Chronicle published its Bonds-transcript story. I just don't see the reporters as part of a dirty-tricks operation when Ellerman's dismissal motion of 281 pages goes long and hard, as reported in the San Jose Mercury News, on the government's making public its field investigation reports of his client; he said those filings would be "Exhibit A" in his motion. I don't see in any news reports, not even in the rival Merc News, any mention of grand jury testimony leaks to the Chronicle. There is a bare mention, almost an aside, of Ellerman's complaint of governmental leaks (and we still don't know there were none -- hell, Conte himself was a leaker to Fainaru-Wada of the gist of athletes' grand jury testimony preceding Bonds' appearance).

 

More "secret" deals by Troy Ellerman exposed below. Apparently, Larry McCormack knows much more about Ellerman than he has previously said publically. Wonder how much more he knows about the ongoing relationship between Ellerman and Fainaru-Wada in 2004? It has been reported that McCormack was there in the office while Fainaru-Wada copied the transcripts and again when the three of them had a meeting together in a restaurant. Maybe the fat lady is preparing to sing an encore.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_5351679

 

I know this is serious business, but suddenly I feel we are in a Fellini film.

 

21,

Maybe a future film will be made and called "Second Dip."

creamora

 

The below are some interesting excerpts from a story called "BALCO Leaks Exposed" that was originally posted December 21, 2006 on Yahoo! Sports by Josh Peter.

Excerpts:

McCormack said he never met Williams but that Ellerman continued to have regular contact with Fainaru-Wada after the June 24 article and that McCormack saw Fainaru-Wada when the reporter visited their office.

"We talked," McCormack said. "We used to shoot the (bull) when he was in the office."

Though McCormack said he worried about the reporters, he also acknowledged worrying about himself when he decided to come forward. He said he feared he could face criminal charges if the reporters identified Ellerman as their source and investigators found out McCormack knew Ellerman leaked the confidential information but never came forward.

McCormack said Ellerman leaked information from the grand jury to Fainaru-Wada. McCormack said he met Fainaru-Wada during a lunch meeting with Ellerman in the spring or summer of 2004. He also said he saw Fainaru-Wada again when the reporter visited the Sacramento office McCormack shared with Ellerman about a half-dozen times between June and December, when Fainaru-Wada and Williams wrote articles citing leaked grand jury documents.

"What in the hell are you doing?" McCormack said he asked. "Man, this is nuts. I don't know why you dragged me into this."

He said, "Don't worry about it. They (the reporters) won't testify."

But as the government intensified its investigation, McCormack said he began to worry that he could be charged with a crime for failing to report evidence about Ellerman's alleged leaks.


Now. The information in this article has certainly brought questions to mind for me as well as others.

For example. What specifically did McCormack learned from a those "half dozen" in person bull sessions with Fainaru-Wada between June and December of 2004? It would seem likely that McCormack knows a lot more than he has stated publically thus far about the Ellerman and Fainaru-Wada relationship.

Maybe some of the reporters here would be willing to attempt to interview McCormack. You never know, he may possibly be willing to shed some light upon the many unanswered questions that exit regarding Ellerman's GJ transcript leaks to Fainaru-Wada. McCormack has already done several more interviews since Josh Peter broke this story. Any thoughts?

creamora