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

Absolutely not. However, if in fact the 'source' was illegally distributing the grand jury testimony to the reporters in hope of spreading damaging information that might alter the case proceedings, then I think the reporters used bad judgement in granting the anonymity. If that was the case (and only the reporters and Chron. editors have all the information necessary to make that determination), then the crime they ignored would be worse than the one they're trying to gain information about. Simple as that. Just because I think they may have used bad judgement doesn't mean I think they should be locked up.

 

Have you read Game of Shadows?

You seem to be focusing your comments on the the leaked testimony. The reporting and investigating that went into the story--in its entirety--reaches far beyond what was revealed by the leak. That's what I'm referring to.

 

Whitlock - What is really being protested here - the right for reporters to release sealed grand jury testimony? If so Washington is the perfect location for such an event.

Great Column BTW- I remember that Telander story in SI - Seems like it might be the one that put him on his journey of hating college football for the past 18 years.

 

first of all, thanks Jason and Rick Telander.

There is a need for a federal shield law. I believe 49 states have a shield law. I believe the effort for a shield law which relates to the federal government is needed. I have heard some people say that what the reporters did was against the law. Well, they received the information. If it is against the law, it is because a judge decides that it is against the law, a decision made without a jury trial and without regard for the First Amendment and often contrary to the public interest.

US history is filled with examples where investigative reporting by journalists corrects wrongs and misuse of government funds and resources. If a soldier was issued flak jackets which were substandard or tainted meat, this needs to be reported. The information surrounding the case would not be volunteered - and the government would seek to use its power to clamp down on information. That is what the Right to Know is about, and that is why shield laws or necessary.

The fact is that most of the information which is leaked in court cases is usually leaked by lawyers for one side or the other, and more often from prosecutors because they pretty much control the flow of information in a grand jury. Everybody complains about "trying a case in the media", but that's usually when their adversary does it.

 

Cran: If you say you don't want the guys thrown in jail, that's cool. As to an earlier comment you made, you said you suspected the source to be an agent, right? Wouldn't the agent be a witness? If so, wouldn't the witness be allowed to discuss his testimony? I'm asking - don't know the answer for sure.

But look - the Chron guys had transcripts. Barring unusual circumstances, there are only a few people they could've gotten the transcripts from (I'm assuming)... A prosecutor, a stenographer, a clerk, a judge... I don't think witnesses can have transcripts of their own testimony in a GJ, and I don't think jurors can have them, either.

I talked to a lawyer friend today, and I asked her if "contempt of court" means the reporters "broke the law."

She said it sounded like a bar exam question, but the answer is no. She said contempt is the equivalent of "thumbing your nose at the court" -- but not law-breaking.

The exception would be a criminal contempt citing, in which charges were brought. That would be followed by a trial. An example of this might be if someone threatened the judge in court.

She also agreed that the reporters didn't break the law by possessing or reporting on the transcripts.

Aside from the obvious fact that the Bush Admin would never let this pass, I don't see why a federal shield law would be a problem since so many states have them.

 

This may be the very worst time in U.S. journalism history to be suggesting a federal shield law. I don't think the public's sympathy is with us these days.

 

But, if the judge tells you to do something, and you refuse, he is within his rights to put you in jail until you do.
If you get fined and/or jailed, does the semantic difference over "breaking the law" really matter?

 

You really need some work on that quote function.

 

Absolutley, it does. There's a big difference in having been convicted of a crime and not having been convicted of a crime. Ask any felon that.

I never said it was. But I have hope for the future. I have great hope that within two years, we'll be going in a different direction in this country.

 

We'll never be going in a direction where the public trusts newspapers until some immediate, sharp changes are made.

The newspaper community has shown it won't do this. It won't even discuss doing it. Hell, it won't even admit there's a problem.

Losing Bush won't change that.

 

I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that the IRS agent leading the investigation wouldn't be within his legal rights to distribute grand jury testimony to reporters if, in fact, that proved to be the case. And please understand I don't say this as fact. I just think that based on everything I've read (including Game of Shadows and the outstanding Playboy article that remains the best piece of journalism regarding the Balco investigation), the agent (Novitzky) has been a loose cannon with a hard-on for Bonds throughout the process. Regardless, the prosecution would seem the most likely source of the information but, for some reason, nobody seems willing to entertain that possibility. Why? I don't know, but I get the feeling that people would prefer to ignore it because the leak helps prosecutors (and journalists?) go after Bonds. As I've said before, I think there's been a sad lack of perspective in the reporting of this story. If it turns out that the reporters gave a free pass (anonymity) to someone breaking the law in order to get a few salacious tidbits about a lesser alleged crime, I would consider that poor judgement on the part of the S.F. Chronicle writers and editors.

 

I'm not so sure about that. If you present it as a limit on government powers - which it is - that might gain more support.