How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

Really late to this. I have been too busy for the board. And I haven't even read all the responses. But right on, Novelist brother. The reporters didn't do anything wrong. The defense attorney did. They made a promise of confidentiality in order to get info they couldn't otherwise get, and they held up their end of the promise. That was heroic from a courage standpoint because of what they were threatened with.

1) The question that is of utmost importance to me is, did the two reporters get their story right? Even if they got used by a sleazy defense attorney, if he gave them good info and they ran with it, I think the net effect is positive. If you get used and go to print with something factually incorrect, or worse libelous, that is when people should be questioning you. But what they reported was all correct and it was all stuff that wouldn't have come to light, correct?

That said... 2) What several people, including FB, have brought up often on this board is important. What precautions should a reporter take when promising confidentiality, to make sure they are not used by slimy prosecutors, defense attorneys or government officials with motives for giving the info that make their motives as newsworthy as the info itself. It's a tricky, and almost unanswerable question. 3) Related to # 2, I want to know more about the circumstances under which they went back to Ellerman for info after they knew what he was up to. It's a fine line, but at that point there may or may not be reason to question their judgment.

None of this, however, turns them into criminals as people idiotically are concluding. They were just reporters doing a good job, within the boundaries of what was legal for them to do.

 

Who says the bullshit detector wasn't blaring? And who says they didn't still didn't conclude that they were getting solid info that made for a strong, factual story the public was craving, with proof finally that someone at the highest achievement level was juicing? If they thought the info was good, they may have questioned the motivations, and still concluded the good info was worth it.

We're not privy to the conversations they had, and the exact nature of how they got the info--what their dealings were like with the defense attorney.

But I don't think I'm missing the point at all. EVERY source--anonymous or on the record--has an agenda. An agenda--even a slimy one--doesn't automatically invalidate the info a source can supply. If you are reasonably certain the person is giving you strong info, the info is still the info. And you have to weigh the motivations and decide if they compromise the story you are pursuing.

If a negative, even twisted, agenda automatically invalidates someone's factual info (which gets at the heart of a hard to reach story), we might as well stop all the presses or just start printing press releases.

 

BuckW, We're in agreement. It's what I said in my first post on this thread. If they knew what Ellerman was up to and they went back to him for more info, it may call their judgment into question. It's the thing giving me pause. But I'd want to know that for sure and know all the circumstances before calling them on it.

 

Probably not too many, if any. Typically the prosecution has the motive to leak info, not the defense team. But if you look at the original thread about the reporters and shield laws, I made no assumptions about where they got the info. Putting it your way, also doesn't change my perception. What if the info had come from a prosecutor trying to use the court of public opinion to turn people against Bonds? Not a good motive--a prosecutor can ruin an innocent man's reputation by doing that. But let's say the reporters knew that, and still concluded that the info they were getting was factual, solid and the type of stuff the public would never get it's hands on otherwise? Do they just toss the info because the prosecutor has an agenda?

This is at the heart of granting anonymity and making the promise to take a name to the grave, if necessary. EVERYONE has an agenda. You have to weigh the agenda and motives of someone who wants anonymity against the info itself and make a judgment call. It is possible for the info to be so good, and so impossible to get at otherwise, that a reporter could decide in good conscience that it's worth it, even under somewhat dicey circumstances. That's my .02.

I'm not privy to what the reporter's knew about what the defense attorney was up to and I don't know all the factors that went into the judgment call they made. They may have used bad judgment, but I am not ready to say that for sure.

What gets lost a little on a thread like this, though, are two things we do actually know: 1) They got an incredible story and apparently got it right. So as used as they got by the defense attorney for illegal purposes, it was not for naught. 2) The defense attorney was doing something illegal, not the reporters. And in the end, a desirable result occurred. The defense attorney is being held responsible for his actions. So in the end, the system as it works in practice, actually worked this time. I wouldn't understate that. The reporters got a strong story and exposed something. And someone doing something illegal was held to account. Those are the results most people would/should want. The way to get that kind of justice is not to stifle the story itself.

 

This is where you keep losing me. You seem to be assuming that they took part in a criminal conspiracy. There is no evidence of that, and actually, my guess is it is unlikely (although I don't know for sure, which is why I am not judging one way or the other with what little info I have). Abetting means they encouraged, supported, aided and approved of what Ellerman was doing. If that is the case, yes, they used poor judgment. But the more likely explanation is that they got used by this guy without actively taking part in his scheme. And if that is the case, all they did was take info that was offered them in order to report a story that was nearly impossible to get at. Assuming they didn't abet, the criminality of what the defense attorney did would fall squarely on the defense attorney's shoulders, not the reporters, and frankly, in my opinion, the reporters have nothing to apologize for. They found a way--within what was lawful for them to do--to get their hands on info that made for an informed, factual story that others were chasing their tails on. Again, that assumes they didn't use poor judgment and actively help this guy break the law. Let's not jump to that conclusion. It is unfair.