How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

For the life of me, I just don't get why anyone would obsess over Ellerman's leaks. They were inconsequential in the legal proceedings. They were the legal equivalent of a basketball player's flopping, a soccer midfielder's diving. They were mentioned in TWO SENTENCES of a 281-page motion to dismiss. They were fleas on a camel.

Let's say you're a reporter who has invested a year's work to get a point where you now have the real story within reach, promised to you by a leaker. Let's say you even know the leaker will include the news of the leak in his motion to dismiss. But you also know, because history says so, that the news of the leak will have no more effect on the case than a flop in the first quarter would have on the NBA Finals.

Given all that, what do you do?

I say thank you very much and put the story in the paper.

Even after the Chronicle stories based on the leaks were published, the judge made clear by her quick overrule of the motion to dismiss that not even the 281 pages of accusations of illegal activities by federal authorities, let alone the TWO SENTENCES on leaks, were reason to dismiss.

 

So you're saying that you believe the reporters calculated that allowing Ellerman to game the system was less important than getting the information in the Chronicle/GOS? I disagree with that. But I'd have less problem with if they were plain old naive and Ellerman duped them than if they suspended their skepticism because they didn't want to understand his motives because it might (should?) have caused them to reconsider.

Kindred, the leaks were what set off a separate investigation by the Southern Calif. office and are the subject of Ellerman's confession. The leaks are also the central part of the discussion about the sourcing in journalism circles as much as you'd apparently like to believe this discussion only exists on SportsJournalists.com.

Further, in your efforts to minimize the leaks you fail to consider the possibility that Ellerman could have been successful in his efforts to get the case disimissed. The reporters had no way of knowing that prior to making a deal with him.

 

Show me a case that was dismissed because of newspaper publicity. Change of venue, maybe, dismissal never. Even sportswriters know that.

Gaming the system? With TWO SENTENCES in 10,000 words? TWO SENTENCES about leaks in 281 pages of virulent attack on the feds' methods of arrest and interrogation?

Absolutely, the sourcing is a story in the real world. I just happen to believe that the story has been distorted. It has been shaped by federal authorities. They dictated Ellerman's plea agreement to make it seem plausible that such leaks could cause a dismissal. That's just not so. That is governmental spin.

I'm ready to be wrong, Cran, I've been wrong plenty of times. But before I admit being wrong here, I again ask you to show me a case anywhere that was dismissed because of a leaks to a newspaper.

 

Good God, I've become Little Ragu....

 

Now we're getting somewhere. I agree that there's been a lot of spin and shaping of the story by federal authorities. But not just with Ellerman's confession. I also think the reporters ran with the spin when it was convenient and fit the story they wanted to write, such as when reporters (not just the Chronicle in this case) bought into the alleged Conte and Anderson confessions that Novitzky failed to record. He initiated a federal raid on Balco, crashing doors down with armed agents. But he sat down to get Conte's "confession" without a recording device. Same with Grimsely's "confession." (Someone needs to buy this guy a digital recorder, don't you think?) Of course, Novitzky was almost certainly a primary source for the book and many of the newspaper stories, too.

Now, before I get attacked again, none of this is meant to suggest that the guys painted as bad guys weren't really bad guys. But I think the feds' highly questionable behavior throughout the case has gone unchallenged by the media. That's kind of sad.

 

The "failure to bring a tape recorder" has been a bullshit law-enforcement tactic going back to, yes, the arrest and interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald.
And Dave, the Ellerman leaks may be tangential to his filing, but they are central to the topic under discussion, which is the use of this guy as a source.

 

Your last sentence, Fenian, is my point. If the source's leaks are tangential to the filing, why do we obsess about the source's integrity and/or his motive in leaking? If the leaks are tangential to the filing, it makes little sense to say the reporters were "duped." Duped into exactly what? Adding tangential information? Since when is that a journalistic sin? The absolute worst-journalistic-sin scenario -- and I don't believe this for a minute -- is that the reporters agreed with a sleaze lawyer to create a tangential diversion in exchange for the biggest sports story of the year.

 

An issue that has not been discussed here is that the two Chronicle "journalists" also became book "authors" using much of the same information.

The reality with the "Game of Shadows" AUTHORS is that their works therein should not be viewed as that of "journalists".....they were collecting information to "sell books" and presumably were wetting the public's appetite for the pending book with periodic morsels in the newspaper.

There is no such thing as a general "authors" privilege and what they produced in their book should be disaggregated from the articles that were published in the Chronicle for purposes of consideration as "journalists" works.

Thoughts?

creamora

 

(Do we need special handstamps or wristbands to post on this thread? I feel like I should be slipping someone a $20 to get in here.)

What do you mean by "general 'authors' privilege"? What privilege are they claiming?

Anyone can sue a publisher and an author--but if you're suing for libel, and your name is Barry Bonds or Jason Giambi or Victor Conte, etc, you'd better be prepared to show some good old-fashioned reckless disregard for the truth, because that's the only chance you've got.