How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

That's a really big leap. He's a lawyer. The Feds were trying to convict his client in the press (we can assume the info came from the Feds). Like any lawyer, he got on the phone with the paper and railed about it (calling the Feds punks). This shit happens every day in criminal justice reporting, Boom. There isn't even an inkling of anything that stains the reporters in it, though. They probably did get the info from the Feds. And in fairness, they quoted the target's attorney responding. That's pretty balanced, and it is what good reporters do. You're making leaps into imagined wrongdoings most people are not going to take with you.

 

You kind of just nailed it... I'd just add that a lot of this only comes into play when you are in Monday Morning Quarterback territory. More often you have to accept that you MIGHT be part of something and that something might not become clear until later. If you agree with me on this, you still have an obligation to live up to your word because of the greater good that comes from reporters who protect their sources.

 

Read the story Boom keeps referencing. It has NOTHING to do with Ellerman's leak of testimony. The Feds (at least it was likely that it was the Feds) told the paper what Valente was blabbing about when they raided him. Ellerman got on the phone and called the Feds punks. The paper reported both sides. First Boom confused this with Ellerman's leaks of GJ testimony (which is cool. I get things wrong too). Then he was making the argument that the reporters did something immoral by putting their names on that story.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that story or their methods. And the irony is that, everything in it is probably true! The Feds probably gave them the info. And Ellerman was probably correct in assuming that.

Anyone arguing that the reporters are somehow immoral (you have to take wild leaps to get there) over that story, is imagining wrongdoings that don't exist. The story itself is solid.

That story is unrelated to Ellerman lying to that judge about leaks, which is the only ethical issue that could possibly have any merit here.

 

Boom, I'm not following your reasoning here. In that story, Ellerman was assuming that the Feds were trying to convict his client in the newspaper. He was probably right. Why wouldn't he say "It will be "Exhibit A" to our argument to dismiss the case?" I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like Lawyer 101 stuff to me. It's actually an argument to dismiss that sounds to my unlawyerly mind like it might actually at least get heard by the judge. It sounds like something Ellerman did that wasn't dishonest. You're making the mistake of taking the things he did wrong and extrapolating it to unrelated things.

In any case, there just isn't any argument that that sullies the reporters of the story you keep quoting. They quoted both sides. All the info in the story is probably right (Feds feeding them info. Defense lawyer crying about it and getting equal time). What's the issue here?