How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

By Policinski's logic, it is absolutely impossible, in theory, to be betrayed by a source and, in practice, it's absolutely impossible for there to be any consequences for that betrayal.

 

Please. He's given response after response. You just don't want to hear what he's offering.

Your responses sound more and more like the gas station owner at the beginning of The Stand who keeps insisting the government should print up more money to pay off the national debt.

Do you live near gas pumps, Ragu? Because you should look out the window; there may be a car barreling toward them.

 

"Will sources with information the public truly needs to know continue to come forward if their ultimate motives and actions, beyond the information they have, are subject to scrutiny and possible disclosure? Will sources risk jobs, retribution or reputation without the solid assurance that the journalist will keep their identity confidential?"

With all due respect, I think this is a crock.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that this case is, in many ways, sui generis. People come forward with anonymous information because they have some motivation that is compelling them to do so. This can be honorable. It also cannot be. The point is that motivation is so strong that it overwhelms their fear for their livelihood. This dynamic isn't going to change based on this case, or on several others, for that matter. If people continued to leak at the Nixon WH with the Plumbers and the FBI pursuing them, they're going to leak regardless of what these two guys conclude. Can anybody seriously argue that the Judy Miller precedent in Washington in any way inhibited Ellerman in what he was doing in SF?

 

I think he's giving them, though, at least as arguments.

At least from what I've read.

 

I have zero problem with the reporters printing secret GJ testimony (under the right conditions, which, unfortunately, haven't been met in this case). Ellerman, however, should be punished for leaking it. Among the reasons privacy is offered is to entice a witness to speak freely, openly and honestly. The witnesses whose testimony was published were damaged by Ellerman, but , more importantly andwhether you like the system or not, the system itself is damaged every time there is a leak, especially in highly publicized instances like this one, because leaks have a chilling on witnesses. They become more reluctant to testify. They are testifying without representation and have been told that the testimony will be kept sealed unless indictments are brought when their testimony might be used in a full court. GJ witnesses have a reason to expect a promise to be a promise, too.

 

Actually, Ragu, you didn't indulge my "nonsense" earlier in the thread. You ignored it when I demonstrated the farce of your arguments. As you'll recall I was the one who called you on it when you told us that no sources ever had altruistic motives and pointed out that LW was out on the book circuit telling everyone their sources did in fact have altruistic motives. It sounded a little naive for LW be saying that. Another possibility is that they suspended their skepticism to deal with Ellerman.

 

Just a few points:

And the problem with this case is that there is a very real possibility that the Chron guys had exactly the information they needed to figure out Ellerman's motivation. If they knew he was abusing their protection to manipulate the trial, and still went back to him for information ... well, that's why we have to ask questions before we give benefits of the doubt. It's just not as simple as "focusing on the information itself." Not for some of us.

But a good reporter can't figure out even the most devious con man? That's playing a little too victim for my tastes.

That's what we DO: we find things out.

Because, as I've explained before, it seems that his minor point abused the protection they gave him by manipulating his own leak, his own anonymity. And then, knowing that, they went back to him for more information.

If you choose to overlook that because it "pales in comparison," that's your judgment call. But some of us are disturbed by that, and it might or might not call their judgment into question, once we find out the answers.

Just because you don't think the answer matters doesn't mean you should stifle the question from being asked. Openness and honesty, remember?

And I know we agree to disagree on this one, but as far as I am concerned it's this: I respect your anonymity, you respect my protection. It's a fair shake for both.

Doesn't work if one side has all the power (and, no, I don't believe that the source having the information means he has all the power. That information is meaningless if it doesn't get out, and that's where the reporter has power. You have to have two players to play a game, which is why "good information" is only part of the deal, not all of it.)

 

More insults instead of responding to a central point of the discussion? Gee, Ragu, you speak like I'm the one posting 16-paragraph posts that ignore key points. So, anyway, this thread has been pretty good and I'd like to think you want to keep it that way, too. So maybe ease up on the persnal insults and stick with facts. And you don't have to address my posts even if it upsets you to be proven wrong.


We would have never had to resort to this if the Federal Government had laid their cards face up on the table, but they did go to great lengths to protect the wealthy athletes names who were caught up in this thing, their names were drawn up in the court files and redacted, but the truth does want to be free and people on all sides of the case wanted to help us because they thought it was wrong to cover for the sports star.

--Lance Williams​

Did they assign this type of altruism out of naivety or a suspension of skepticm based on expedience. We'll never really know unless the Chronicle addresses it. They don't have to address it, of course, but it will look bad to many of us unless they do.