How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

Boom, I don't find an October 29 story by Williams and F-W in the SF Gate archive. Is this the October 30 story you posted earlier, in which Ellerman calls the Feds punks for sharing what Valente said when they raided him (which isn't relevant and doesn't call anybody into question except maybe the Feds)? Or is it some other story (maybe the October 9 story in which they report about Victor Conte/Troy Ellerman's motion)? Can you link, please?

If it is the October 9 story, they presented Ellerman's allegations and asked the Feds for a response. Seems to me, that makes them reporters of some news. They gave both sides an opportunity to respond. It hardly makes them "complicit in obstruction of justice." THEY didn't claim that Ellerman was speaking the truth (he actually may have been on key points, but it's irrelevant), they just report his motion, and they asked the Feds to respond. That is pretty fair.

If they knew that Ellerman was lying about a point in his motion, they only knew because of a promise of confidentiality they made to him. We seem to disagree here. You are suggesting that they shouldn't have kept their word (if this really was an issue--do we know for sure they had reason to believe he was lying?).

I will reassert that if they screwed their source, as you believe they should have, you might as well say goodbye to some key sources and kiss many important stories goodbye. Hold Ellerman responsible for what he did. Hold the reporters responsible for keeping their word. They did.

 

You're muddling things. I can't comment on Judith Miller's work either way. But you seem to be saying that she got it wrong. And that tempered the public's attitudes. If that's the case, I agree with you. It's what I've been arguing! Get the story right, and we are informed. Get it wrong and you've screwed up.

Now go through the substantive work that Williams and Fainaru-Wada did and show me how they got it wrong (not niggling details, the big picture). Show me how the public was less informed, or misinformed, by them reporting about BALCO and Bonds. If you can do that, you have a great parallel to Judith Miller.

If you REALLY want to harp on a convicted attorney who broke the law regarding a court order, I'm asking you to look at everything in the aggregate and ask, "Should they have screwed their source over a promise they made, thereby making future stories unreportable?" Is that really the preferable course of action?

In the aggregate, how important is Troy Ellerman's shenanigans (which he got nailed on--justice was served!--which is why this hand wringing is so dumb) relative to a huge "elephant in the room" story every sports fan wanted to know the truth about, but couldn't get factual info for? Either way, it is STILL all hindsight. The minute they promised Ellerman anonymity, they made up their minds to live up to their word. And the principle they believe in depends on that! They stayed true to their word. I'm not only not going to criticize that, I also believe the ideas behind a free press have been strengthened by their actions.

 

Boom, addressed this earlier. This has nothing to do with Ellerman breaking his court order. Valente was a target of the investigation. Go reread that story. Ellerman was calling the Feds punks for telling the reporters what his client said when they raided him. It has nothing to do with the grand jury or Ellerman's motion in which he lied to the judge. In fact, you have to presume that Ellerman was 100 percent right--the reporters had gotten this info from the Feds (although I don't know). Only the Feds would probably know what Valente was saying when they raided him. Ellerman's beef was that someone had told the reporters what his client had said.

I think you are sort of proving a point in a backward way, here, though. This story is complicated. Before calling the reporters criminals who conspired with Ellerman to do illegal things, it's worth considering that they were talking to lots of people (including the Feds) and there is a lot we don't know about their methods. We pretty much know they did a solid job of investigative reporting that hasn't been seriously challenged by anyone. That should give them some cred. Why are people so eager to now assume they acted illegally, without any proof whatsover?