1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by SF_Express, Feb 19, 2007.

Page 37 of 52
  1. creamora

    creamora Member

    Ragu,


    This Policinski article was posted two weeks ago. I read it and thought about it then and have repeatedly posted here in this thread that the "promise is a promise" defense for the Chronicle reporters actions is bullshit in my opinion. Go back and look at my previous posts. I'm sure that almost everybody here had already read it as well. You really seem to be grasping. It's time to ask and receive some answers to the tough questions. The cloud over the Chronicle reporter's heads is not going to go away until there are some acceptable answers provided. "They can run, but they can't hide", as Joe Louis once said. The longer they wait to come forward, the bigger the blaze is going to get.

    creamora
     
    creamora, Mar 8, 2007
    #433
  2. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    Or what? What if you don't get the answers to the questions you want asked and answered? They're not going to jail, they're not getting fired...what remedy are you looking for, other than to say 'these guys suck!'?
     
    21, Mar 8, 2007
    #434
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    cream, Didn't mean to imply that your all-out assault hasn't made your stance clear. I guess I should have realized it was an older story. It also summed up my views fairly well. With you posting commentaries that have come to conclusions no one can possibly know for sure, since the reporters haven't named all of their sources, I just wanted to present something that did an honest job of acknowledging the questions some people have, while putting them in a different light--the bigger principle at stake.

    EDIT: cream, they aren't running or hiding. I think either of them would stand behind their reporting and the book they wrote. Aside from any typos you've found, and your alleged mistake of Gail Devers' coach's name on page 293, what do you think of the substance of the book? I've been curious about that.
     
    The Big Ragu, Mar 8, 2007
    #435
  4. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    on final analysis I just do not see how the greater good of the general public was served by printing the sealed testimony in the Chronicle.

    Whether you like the guy or not Barry Bonds had the right to expect that his confidential grand jury testimony would not become punlic.
     
    Boom_70, Mar 8, 2007
    #436
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    He did? There are a million reasons given for grand jury secrecy. A witness's right to expect that it stays secret is not one of them. If Victor Conte or James Valente had had a trial, the prosecutor could have marched Bonds' testimony right into an open court room full of reporters. Bonds had no legitimate expectation of anything, other than that when he took an oath to tell the truth, he was expected to honor it.
     
    The Big Ragu, Mar 8, 2007
    #437
  6. creamora

    creamora Member

    21,

    I'm not sure what the appropriate "remedy" or consequence for the two Chronicle reporters should be because we don't know exactly what they did involving the leaked transcripts. As you know, they are still taking the "no comment" position. It's my opinion that the two reporters and the Chronicle are complicit even if they walk without any consequences. Maybe the appropriate consequence will end up being a significant reduction in the proceeds from the the Fainaru-Wada and Williams T-Shirt sales.

    Rag,

    OK. Maybe the Chronicle reporter's "no comment" position shouldn't be labeled as "running and hiding." A more appropriate description might be "ducking and dodging." I also think that more and more information will start to become available that will seriously challenge the accuracy of the information in their book. It's amazing to me how many reporters have simply accepted the information in their book as being factual without really checking out the references provided. However, as the saying goes, "You can only teach those who are willing to learn." I simply don't consider you to be in that category. You seem to have already made up your mind without knowing the answers to the tough questions.

    creamora
     
    creamora, Mar 8, 2007
    #438
  7. creamora

    creamora Member

    Ragu says, "We'll definitely find that out. We'll also find out whether they (WSJ) state conjecture as fact. My guess is no, but I'll be interested to see."

    Presenting "conjecture as fact" is basically what the two Chronicle reporters have repeatedly done thoughout their book. I find it to be strange that so many reporters seem to have accepted the information in their their book without question.

    creamora
     
    creamora, Mar 8, 2007
    #439
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Cream, Teach me. Please! You've been all sizzle, no steak... OK bad saying. I don't eat steak. But throw some rice and beans our way, instead of promises of a great meal that you haven't cooked.
     
    The Big Ragu, Mar 8, 2007
    #440
  9. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Why have sealed testimony then. Whatever the reason was - it was violated. You seem awful flip about such a breech to our judicial process.

    Perhaps Bonds, Giambi and Sheffield might have put up a bigger fight not to testify.
     
    Boom_70, Mar 9, 2007
    #441
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I'm not being flip. Our judicial process is an open and fair one. The GJ system (which isn't used in all jurisdictions--some have realized how antithetical it is to American values and done away with it) is the ONE area of our judicial system that doesn't place a premium on openness and honesty. The sixth amendment, for example, guarantees an accused person the right to a speedy and public trial. The public part was written in to make sure that people are there to witness it and make sure that the rules get followed--so the accused gets a fair shake.

    Grand juries, unlike the fair process I just described, do things in secret. Prosecutors can lead jurors by the nose on any witch hunt they want to try to secure an indictment. And amazingly, the target of the investigation isn't allowed in to see what is going on, nor is his attorney. It's kind of a farce. But yes, the system does still exist that way, whether I like it or not, and it is illegal for certain people involved in the process to share anything that went on behind those closed doors.

    All of that said, the reasons given for GJ secrecy have NOTHING to do with witnesses having any right to think that what they say behind those closed doors will remain private. If Victor Conte or James Valente hadn't pled to avoid trials, the prosecutor could have--and likely would have--brought some of the testimony from those athletes into an open court room. And we'd all know what they said under oath. There was no guarantee of "secrecy." They had no right to expect secrecy. This is America, remember? We strive for openness and honesty, not Kremlin-like secrecy.

    The GJ is also just like any other legal proceeding. Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, etc. couldn't "put up a bigger fight" not to testify. They were subpoenaed as witnesses. They had no choice. If you get called as a witness, you don't get to do the "I don't feel like testifying" thing. You have to. And when they showed up, they were administered an oath. Their choices were to tell the truth, or if they risked incriminating themselves, to plead the fifth.

    None of those guys rights were violated in any way, and you'll notice no one is trying to make a credible public or legal argument that they were. They had one duty: to tell the truth. That didn't come with a condition of, "Tell the truth because this is being done in secret." There are lots of conditions under which they could have expected their testimony to be made public. And there are lots of reasons why the public should have wanted their testimony to become public.
     
    The Big Ragu, Mar 9, 2007
    #442
  11. henryhenry

    henryhenry Member

    policinski is only half right in his descripition of sources.

    sources in the government often are motivated by good intentions - an attempt to nudge bureacracy, or legislation, or shape public policy

    characterizing confidential sources as always having a nefarious agenda is half wrong

    we still don't know if the chronicle guys had government sources


    not creamora
     
    henryhenry, Mar 9, 2007
    #443
  12. alexg23

    alexg23 Member

    The Scripps Howard Foundation today announced the winners of its annual National Journalism Awards, honoring the best in print, Web and electronic journalism and journalism education for 2006...

    DISTINGUISHED SERVICE TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT
    Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams of the San Francisco Chronicle receive $10,000 and the Edward Willis Scripps award for their strong stance against revealing confidential sources related to their expose of the sports doping scandal. They faced 18 months in prison for contempt of court, a sentence the Chronicle vigorously fought until the source, a lawyer in the case, recently and voluntarily stepped forward.
     
    alexg23, Mar 9, 2007
    #444
Page 37 of 52
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page