Important...Please read if you're a journalist...

Come on. That's a ridiculous comparison. Again, you're arguing with your heart and not your head.

This isn't even the most intriguing first ammendment battle going on right now. Check out what's going on Lancaster, Pa. if you want a case that has a lot more gray area, and room for debate (And, perhaps, capitol-hill protests) than the Chronicle case.

 

Frank, to me, the story is about more than just "celebrity."

 

If that's what it means to you personally, I can't argue that. But it's BS to believe that's not what it means to the paper. There are drug cases in San Fran all the time -- the Chron devoted resources to this one because celebrities were involved. There are people dying from other drugs every day. How many newspapers devote more than a brief to that?

 

Inarguable.

 

I should mention that some papers do write drug stories about the non-famous. Hartford's "Heroin Town" comes to mind. But this one is big only because of the famous athletes.

 

Sure, because the case involved a celeb and the feds -- that makes it more newsworthy. But it doesn't mean the story is only about "celebrity."

I believe it touches on larger issues. The issue of steroids in baseball, for example. In my view, that issue represents a big problem.

 

>>Aren't there a couple of exceptions to "A journalist never reveals his sources"?<<
If a reporter is given advance knowledge of a crime to be commited and doesn't tell law enforcement, the reporter is guilty of a crime.
No exceptions, no privilege.
So if a guy tells a reporter, I'm going to blow up the federal court house tomorrow at Noon and the reporter believes the person to be credible, then he or she is compelled to tell.
The same is true for an attorney, or a priest or a doctor, and, I believe, spouse.

And I got my ACLU card. I don't have a civil liberties problem. The problem I have is that journalists seem to want to have it both ways expecting special consideration (extra legal protection in this case) for what they do.
And we all want special consideration. We want parking permits and passes. The ability to tell a judge to F off, when compelled to testify.
I have a fundamental problem with that.

 

As do I.

Well played.

 

You cannot be serious.
Sexual molestation vs. voluntary use of perfromance enhancing drugs?
When I talk about "drug hysteria," that's pretty much what I mean.

 

Absolutely. He should not have to reveal his source. Oh, and since his source is himself, that right is also protected by the fifth amendment, which protects him from being forced to incriminate himself.

 

My point was that different issues are on a sliding scale of importance to different people.

Many see use of performance enhancing drugs as a big societal concern.

But all journalists should check with you first, Fenian, to see how important these issues really are before aggressively reporting on them.