How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

I guess this is to both creamora and boom (and jeez, I am supposed to getting some work done right now!)... Of course they have no comment. What about this is hard to understand? They made a promise of anonymity to a source or sources. They have not broken that promise to this day. I've never heard either of them say Ellerman (or anyone else) was a confidential source. To go on TV and start revealing info about their sources does exactly what they've said they won't do all along (and can't do if they believe in the principles they have stood behind). When you are getting battered by people questioning your motives (rather ridiculously, given that these two men have never shown themselves to be dishonorable or reporters who screwed up the story), I imagine it is difficult to stay so true to your principle. But then again, these were two guys who were prepared to go to jail without having been convicted of anything, in defense of that principle, so it's no surprise they are remaining steadfast even now.

As an outsider looking in, this is what *I* have to work with... Their adherence to that principle (which I believe in)... and their ability to report a pretty big story that no one has successfully challenged. Do one of two things: Show me how they got the story wrong. Or give me something tangible that makes a clear case for wrongdoing on their part--not speculative leaps of faith!

All I see you doing is lobbing, "What do they have to hide?" questions. Tell me exactly what should give anyone reason to believe they have anything to hide. What are they doing differently today than they have done all along when they stated, "We are not going to compromise our sources?" Whether it is a judge threatening them with jail, or people like you smearing them, they have stood pretty tall in their refusal to break a promise.

 

What are you implying, creamora? You seem to be hinting at something.

 

I think my logic is fine, and I know there are others who agree with the logic. But feel free to challenge it with something compelling.

I have no clue what the reporters were thinking at any given time. I have no idea who they were talking to, under what circumstances and what they knew about anybody's motives. Neither can you. They have done a good job of not compromising their sources. That's the point!

I only know the stories they reported and the book they wrote. By all accounts, they reported the truth.

Apparently you don't agree with me about the one key point. When a reporter says, "I will not give you up," he has a responsibility to stay true to that promise, not only because of what it says about his own word, but because it makes future sources working with other reporters more confident that reporters will honor their promises of confidentiality. The reason I know you disagree with me is that you are insisting they go back on their word because YOU want questions answered (despite the fact that all we know for sure about them is that they reported a big story that no one has successfully challenged--the kind of thing that should give them credibility).

If they weren't willing to name names when a judge was threatening them with jail, why exactly do you think they are now acting dishonorably because they won't start naming names to make people like you happy? You're the judge making the demand now. And they are keeping their word, nonetheless. What about that doesn't register? And doesn't keeping your word mean anything?

 

Cream, Anything is possible. If you suspect any of those things, I suggest you find a way to provide some evidence of it. But forgive me for not embracing the grassy knoll theories, as interesting as they sound. This is the difference between what those reporters did and what you seem to be doing. They had documentation of the things they reported. The proof of the pudding is that anyone is now free to discredit the stories they broke with evidence showing them to have gotten BALCO and Bonds wrong. No one has, to my knowledge.