How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

creamora, My thoughts are, 1) why don't you call him up and interview him if it is that important to you (not suggesting anyone else shouldn't, but you should understand why it isn't high-priority stuff for people working on more important things), and 2) What does any of this have to do with anything? The Yahoo! stories you are quoting from outed Ellerman as a source of GJ testimony of various athletes. Ellerman admitted to this in a plea agreement (it was illegal for him to be sharing it), so I assume it is true. The reporters haven't said a thing about it--they have remained true to their promise to not name their sources (yet instead of congratulating them for that, you're posting interviews in which they assert that they'll do exactly that, and then you're trying to twist it into a criticism).

My thinking is that Ellerman was a source and lots of other people were probably sources. McCormack was working with Ellerman, so even if the info was coming from Ellerman and not McCormack, if McCormack was around the reporters because of his role in this, he was a source. What is the point of all this? What are the "many unanswered questions" you are so hung up on? BE SPECIFIC and after you make your gotcha argument, be honest about why this question you asked is important. Because I am scratching my head over you. What are your "a ha!" posts about every red herring detail (many that require arcane knowledge or big leaps of logic) except the overriding issues regarding their work, proving? It's like I expect to log on here each day and read, "Lance Williams wore a blue shirt that day. A ha!".

I'll break it down simply. 1) Did Ellerman give them bad info? If so, what exactly did these reporters report that was incorrect as a result of their contact with the man? 2) Did they have a code by which they did their work (if anonymity is a condition of you sharing info, we will protect your name, no matter what we're threatened with) and stay true to it?

Those are two things that matter in their line of work. It's key to the issue that started this thread. Protect your sources and report info factually. You grant anonymity in the first place, in order to get factual info you can't otherwise. Did their granting people anonymity accomplish that goal?

The name of Gail Devers' coach on page 293 of their book notwithstanding, did they do their job well? Is the substance of their Chronicle stories and book correct? (I can't speak to this 100 percent, because their work isn't my life, as I've proven on here. I haven't seen anyone do an honest job of discrediting their work, though, just people throwing appliances at the messengers to try to sully them, because the message they delivered apparently pushes some people's buttons, for whatever reasons).

You seem hung up on this "double dipping" mantra. Apparently you don't agree with the principle that reporters should be able to do honest work without the government stepping on their throats. For me, they could have "dipped" so much that they were running an intravenous line from their veins to Ellerman's, and I still wouldn't understand your beef. The thing I'd want to know is, "Did Ellerman give them factual information that they then turned into factual stories?" It's that simple. If Ellerman was breaking the law, he's the one who has to answer for his actions. But for the reporters, there is nothing immoral or wrong about accepting information from a source. It's just factual info. And they are reporters.

Maybe you know something I don't. I've never poured over Game of Shadows or the chronology of BALCO until forced to do a little (very little) of it because of this thread. It's apparently something you have given a lot of thought to.

Maybe you can convince me. Without the "10 steps removed from the issue" a-ha! arguments, or vague allegations of wrongdoing, maybe you can tell me EXACTLY what it is they did wrong. Say it plainly and clearly and I'll listen. If the methodology of their reporting was wrong, be specific. Tell me where they got it wrong and how. If they got any of the big points about BALCO and Barry Bonds wrong (the things that compelled people to read their book, not Gail Dever's coach's name!), tell me what they got wrong, and how we know this. Tell me why it matters. That's what this is about.

 

BuckW, it is almost impossible for me to answer this. I don't know what they knew, when they knew it and what other factors we don't know about played into it. I can only speculate. But let's say the reporters read that motion and said, "Hey, he's full of shit!" and that is all there is to the story. What were they to do? The only reason they knew he was full of shit is that they had dealt with him and promised him anonymity. So they stayed true to their word. That is what they should have done. If they didn't report it, I can see a logical reason why (again, without knowing everything that went into the decision).

People are trying to make a 20/20 hindsight argument that Ellerman's sleaziness invalidates that principle of reporters protecting sources. What has changed today, now that we know Ellerman's identity that wouldn't have been the case if Ellerman's name and behavior had never come to light? And before someone goes down this path, the fact that Ellerman turned out to do something criminal doesn't now compel the reporters to open their notes and start breaking their confidentiality promises. The principle is still intact. The reporters are not the justice system. As long as they know what they did was right (I am assuming they believe they did nothing wrong), they have every right to assert it and challenge anyone who has a beef with them to do the work themselves and prove them unethical or wrong. If you really have doubts about the reporters themselves, don't trust their stories. It's that simple. But let's be real. Does anyone who is honest with themselves really have good reason to believe they got the substance of this story wrong?).

And even with Ellerman's unfortunate behavior a known fact, think about the alternative... NEVER deal with an anonymous source, because when you promise to protect their name, you can't report anything bad they do in the future if it requires you out them as your source? That doesn't sit well with me. The reporters apparently got solid info from Ellerman, which they turned into some stories that brought hard-to-get information to the public. That is important. I'd be really bothered if the reporters had screwed it up and gotten bad info. But Ellerman gave them factual information by all accounts. Ellerman didn't break his deal with them, so they couldn't out him. Ellerman broke a deal with a judge. That isn't the reporters' responsibility.

Follow the line of reasoning against the reporters' actions backward... and they never report the BALCO story AND they don't know that Ellerman is lying when they read that motion. Is anyone here arguing that reporters staying in the dark, instead of pursuing stories, is a preferable outcome?

Again, I am speculating--I don't know the full story any more than anyone else on here--but if the key parts of my speculation are correct (and I'd guess parts probably aren't, so I am not laying it out there as gospel--which is one of my points... let's not judge something we don't really know about), I'd say more truthful information got out there because of their actions than if they had refused to deal with him, buried stories instead of reporting them, or if they had shit on the principle of anonymity by outing a source (and making it that much more unlikely that future sources will come forward).

 

And to me that promise of confidentiality has to be absolute, or else it is meaningless. Give a source reasons to think you will betray him or her, and you might as well not expect confidential sources to ever bring reporters info.

This is the compact: 1) You promise to give me truthful information. 2) You do not do anything that forces my relationship with you to make me have to choose between breaking the law myself or living up to my promise to you. 3) If you live up to those conditions, I will protect your name.

It really has to be that way (without murky conditions), or else anonymity is meaningless.

If you don't agree with me, and you were in the Chronicle reporters' shoes and wanted to attach "legality of your actions, not related to us" clauses to dealing with Ellerman (it takes a little bit of foresight, but it is still a valid question), it might have been a deal breaker. That kind of stuff can might make a source nervous. It's as if the reporter is looking for loopholes with which to be able to break their promise. The promise has to be fairly full proof, to be effective.

So should they have walked away from this guy who wanted to give them factual GJ testimony regarding a great story? How many people here would have?