How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

Facts:

1) Ellerman has confessed to being one (if not the only) source of GJ transcript leaks of athletes' testimony.

2) Ellerman cited the leaks printed in the newspaper as among the reasons charges should be dismissed against his client.

3) The leaks were considered harmful enough by the court that a federal investigation costing hundreds of thousands of dollars ensued and, so far, only Ellerman has been found.

4) Knowing the leaks were being used by Ellerman, the Chronicle nonetheless returned to Ellerman for more information.

5) LW is out there telling anyone and everyone that they were forced to use sources because the Chronicle, sources (and presumably the public) wanted to see the athletes punished.

As aghast as Kindred and Ragu might be, this is a journalism thread on a journalism board and this is a great topic around which to discuss ethics in using anonymous sources. We have every right to discuss this case.

We make public fodder of people's lives and actions every day as part of our work. Rarely, if ever, does news comes out in a nice tidy package. Rather it comes out little by little and we put the pieces together over time. The thought that reporters and newspapers somehow should be given the benefit of the doubt or that we should wait until all of the facts are in before voicing opinions on a message board are absurd.

 

I posted earlier that it seemed like some were giving the Chronicle guys the benefit of the doubt. An option that isn't given to most.
It seems like we have a thin inky line going. Sort of like the cops and their thin blue line. Protect your own, no matter the cost. Always assume that your guys were on the side of the angels. Never trash another's work, at least not in print and so and so forth.

 

Cranberry and JayFarrar,

Well said in both of your last posts.

All this "good old boys club" stuff coming from Ragu and Kindred was beginning to make me nauseous. Is it not the job of a journalist to ask the tough questions? Is it not in fact an obligation for a journalist to be fair and balanced? All this "Because chances are the truth is that they haven't done anything wrong" stuff by Ragu is really starting to sound pathetic. Sports journalists being asleep at the wheel contributed to the "Steroid Era." Where were the tough questions about the use of drugs in baseball in the 1990's? Ragu applauds the Chronicle reporters for flushing out the so called truth about BALCO. Why would he now be discouraging reporters from flushing out the truth about the Chronicle's motives? Many questions remain unanswered and all the excuses being offered thus far are unacceptable.

creamora

 

That's pathetic. Have you ever met them personally? Why do they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

If your mother says she loves you, check it out.

 

Bullshit.

You have been trotting out the same, tired Le Batard-caliber apologism, over and over and over again.

It's a harangue, and it's fucking monotonous.

I contributed a long time ago on this thread, and had nothing more to put in. Then, I read all of this vomit of yours after a post apprising us that you would not be posting again on the matter.

And, it is funny.

 

If you think that sources never have a whole lot to gain, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.

 

The cops certainly wish they could zip around the legal system and not need a warrant to check someone's car or home.

 

How do you KNOW any of that?

 

There are skins thinner than a condom's when it comes to criticism of a journalist here.

 

Let's go back to the studio for an update with John Saunders and Stephen A. Smith.