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.


  1. Stay away from Maggie, you pompous windbag.
     
  2. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Maybe they were all on the sidelines, shouting "Go get'em Ragu!" Then again, maybe they were trampling women and children on the way off the sinking ship.

    Seriously, Balco is no longer Exhibit A for journalists in the battle for a federal shield law and the reporters are off the hook, legally. I'd sure like to hear the Chronicle's rationale someday, though, and I think you could build a j-school class around the sourcing issues.
     
  3. creamora

    creamora Member

    Interesting new article published today on the subject of our discussion is below.

    Reporters should demand more of their anonymous
    sources

    Journalists are granting confidentiality too easily,
    hurting their profession.
    By Dante Chinni

    The Christian Science Monitor
    March 12, 2007

    WASHINGTON - The past few weeks have not been good
    ones for journalists. On two coasts and in two trials
    the issue of anonymous sourcing and off-the-record
    conversations has come to the fore – and in both cases
    questions have been raised about reporters' methods.

    The trial of former White House aide I. Lewis
    "Scooter" Libby ended last week in guilty verdicts on
    four of five counts of lying about his role in leaking
    the identity of former undercover CIA operative
    Valerie Plame. But the story behind the story was the
    line of journalists – some of them household names –
    who were called before the jury to testify about
    confidential conversations they had with sources.

    The judge said that "waivers" their sources had signed
    (under pressure from the prosecution) essentially
    voided the confidentiality agreements they had
    reached. In most cases, journalists then went back to
    get explicit OKs from their sources before testifying.


    Out in California, the case about distribution of
    steroids to star athletes by the Bay Area Laboratory
    Cooperative (BALCO) took an odd turn recently. Two
    journalists who'd reported on the BALCO scandal in
    2004 faced jail time for refusing to say how they
    acquired the grand jury testimony of pro-baseball
    players admitting to steroid use. It turns out that
    they got their information from ... the defense team.
    A few weeks ago, defense lawyer Troy Ellerman
    confessed that he had leaked the information in hopes
    of getting a mistrial declared for his clients.

    The reporters were eventually spared the threat of
    prison when the defense lawyer acknowledged that he
    was the source of the leak.

    These are two different cases with two different
    outcomes. In the Libby case, the journalists all
    eventually talked. In the BALCO case, reporters were
    prepared to go to jail to protect a source who, in
    their minds, had given them information of overriding
    public interest about steroid use in baseball.

    But to many in the public, the cases are linked by one
    question whose answer may be more black and white than
    it once seemed: Should journalists be allowed to be
    "above the law" and not obey when ordered to testify
    in court?

    That sentiment points out the bigger problem that
    probably everyone can agree on. Journalists
    increasingly grant confidentiality and anonymity the
    way many Americans run up credit card charges – too
    easily. As a result, the notion of anonymous sourcing
    has spread from reluctant whistle-blowers and highly
    sensitive sources to virtually anyone. Even Capitol
    Hill press secretaries – paid for by taxpayer money –
    are now routinely anonymous, and all they are trying
    to do is float stories to make their bosses look good.


    Most journalists will tell you that sources now often
    ask for anonymity before "revealing" information that
    is readily obtainable elsewhere. And those actions
    have led to a more cavalier dispensing of such
    agreements.

    Still, source anonymity is not going to just go away.
    It is an established part of journalism, and don't
    forget that it has yielded more than a few reporting
    triumphs – Watergate, of course, being the most
    memorable.

    So what, if anything, can be done?

    There's no easy answer. Giving a source the blanket of
    confidentiality will always remain a judgment call. It
    may be time, however, for journalists to start making
    that judgment more carefully. While there is sometimes
    a lot to be gained in granting a source
    confidentiality, there may also be a lot risked.

    To prevent sources from gaming the system, journalists
    may need to put a few provisos on that guarantee. It
    may be time to say "I'll grant you anonymity and hold
    to the deal, provided you are straight with me and
    don't legally hang me out to dry."

    That kind of statement would probably raise a lot of
    questions and set off a conversation between the
    reporter and his sources hashing out exactly what each
    side is thinking. And that kind of discussion is not a
    bad thing.

    Will that kind of talk scare some sources off?
    Probably, but many are likely to be the sources
    journalists want to avoid anyway.

    After all, everyone loves a scoop, but the stakes are
    higher than just the risk of possibly going to prison
    to protect sources. If journalists don't treat
    confidentiality seriously, then they may wind up
    facing just two options: (1) Come forward and reveal
    an anonymous source and risk being labeled a chiseller
    or (2) honor the confidentiality agreement and accept
    that they've been used.

    In a profession that thrives on reputation, those are
    pretty poor choices.

    • Dante Chinni, a senior associate at the Project of
    Excellence in Journalism, writes a twice-monthly
    column on media issues.
     
  4. Creamora, did all 70 of your posts come on this thread?
     
  5. Mighty_Wingman

    Mighty_Wingman Active Member

    Dante Chinni preserves his 5,000-column streak of mentioning Watergate. It's his St. Crispin's Day.
     
  6. Dave Kindred

    Dave Kindred Member

    No, only 68 of them.
    His second, on Feb. 28, dealt with BALCO, though.
    His first, that same day, may have been the most instructive on his thinking. It asked what's the big deal about performance-enhancing drugs, we live in a performance-enhancing society.
     
  7. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    This is the point I've raised throughout the thread. Others have said, it's too difficult and all of the sources will go away. But, I'd also agree with the writer's earlier point that there's too much anonymity being granted anyway. If there are a few less anonymous sources in the news and higher standards in using them journalists and the public will be better served.
     
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    No one is arguing against that point. It's so obvious that the commentary didn't add much here. It's a discussion we've had on about a half dozen threads since the BALCO story first broke. And it's a healthy discussion that journalists should be having among themselves.

    But if anyone is going to extend that discussion to "the Chronicle reporters used anonymous sources too liberally," they might as well be arguing that use of such sources is NEVER acceptable (a point Chinni was NOT making). This was precisely the kind of story they are needed for.

    I'd also point out that Chinni nailed it when he said, "There's no easy answer." It comes back to what has been the point all along. It's a judgment call. And you can not have hard and fast rules about things that require judgment.

    Do you want to discuss how reporters can use better judgment more often? That's a healthy discussion. This is the problem FB has had all along. Chinni's is mostly a question of laziness and granting anonymity when it really wasn't necessary. A capital hill flack trying to make his boss look good, for example. You should know there is BS behind it, not solid, truthful info--this takes judgment. Or info that could easily have been gotten without the anonymity with a little digging.

    If more journalists give more thought before granting anonymity that is a great thing. It still doesn't invalidate the use of such sources. And holding the BALCO story up as an example of poor use of anonymous sources flies in the face of reason. Chinni didn't do it.The sources were obviously necessary in this case and they obviously provided truthful info in this case to expose a story that would have remained buried. That is good journalism.

    When a source comes to you asking for anonymity, there is nothing saying you HAVE to grant it. Use some judgment. Take into account the value of the potential info and whether it can be gotten without such a drastic promise. Don't make that kind of deal lightly. That still leaves a lot of investigative stories for which use of such sources are very appropriate. Let's not muddle the increasing use of anonymous sources and the laziness behind it to paint the use of those sources with a broad brush that confuses the lazy journalists with journalists who have made a legitimate judgment call.
     

  9. And gentlemen in England now a'bed
    shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here.
    And hold their manhoods cheap
    (Sorry, Bubbler)
    whilst any speaks that fought with us,
    upon St. Crispin's Day.

    I think of Ragu on this thread when I hear that.
     
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    And I've had Tennyson in my head the whole time:

    Cannon to right of them,
    Cannon to left of them,
    Cannon in front of them
    Volley'd and thunder'd;
    Storm'd at with shot and shell,
    Boldly they rode and well,
    Into the jaws of Death,
    Into the mouth of Hell
    Rode the six hundred.
     
  11. Dave Kindred

    Dave Kindred Member

    Minus about five hundred ninety-seven....
     
  12. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Chinni most certainly questioned the sourcing, which is why he used the Chronicle's Balco coverage as an example in his story in the first place:

    Out in California, the case about distribution of steroids to star athletes by the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO) took an odd turn recently. Two journalists who'd reported on the BALCO scandal in 2004 faced jail time for refusing to say how they acquired the grand jury testimony of pro-baseball players admitting to steroid use. It turns out that they got their information from ... the defense team. A few weeks ago, defense lawyer Troy Ellerman confessed that he had leaked the information in hopes of getting a mistrial declared for his clients. ...

    To prevent sources from gaming the system, journalists may need to put a few provisos on that guarantee. It may be time to say "I'll grant you anonymity and hold to the deal, provided you are straight with me and don't legally hang me out to dry."


    Which was why I asked earlier in the thread whether you thought the Balco reporters really believed Ellerman just wanted to expose the athletes for altruistic reasons (which I think would be more than a little naive) or whether they decided not to ask the question for reasons of expedience. You seemed to fall back on the idea that it shouldn't be reporters' job to examine the motives of would-be sources (they got truthful information, right?) but my position is that suspending a healthy degree of skepticism can get reporters into sticky ethical situations. Like this one.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page