Telander's Note, a Column, and now SF Editor Bronstein Weighs In

That side of the story has already been lost. No one wants to visit the issue of whether the Chronicle used good judgement in granting anonymity (How can you be an investigative journalist and win awards without stories that have leaks and quote anonymous sources!). Rather than turn over a rock that might reveal something slimy, many of us would rather skip ahead and defend the reporters right to make such judgements. So it's OK to be used as a tool by prosecutors (or whomever) and damage the grand jury process -- as long as you get a salacious tidbit to reveal.

Bronstein, in addition to being disingenuous with all the "for the children" nonsense, is pretty loose with his facts. All this talk about how the Chron. reporters got the whole ball rolling is absurd considering there'd been Senate hearings on steroids in pro sports (March 2004?) well before their first byline on the topic. What they accomplished was to add fuel to a fire that had already begun by exposing in far greater detail the inside workings of performance enhancement in sports. Kudos for all that, of course, but please save all of the disingenuous "for the children" and "public service" crap.

It still would have been great reporting if they hadn't granted the anonymity and never received the grand jury transcripts. In fact, it might have been better if they had the courage to expose the leaker rather than do business with him.

 

If this isn't important to you, you should seriously re-consider why you went into this profession...

I could care less the motives of the SF writers in the Bonds case. It's investigative reporting at its finest and we should stand up and cheer for these guys as they go to court to fight for a freedom that should be dear and personal to all of us in this business...

Now, where can I buy a T-shirt?

 

I'll put Mizzou down as one of those people who don't want to visit the issue of using good judgement in granting anonymity. Should anonymity just be granted automatically then? Anybody who wants it can have it, regardless of their agenda? Again, I'm not questioning the bulk of the reporting, which I agree has been outstanding. If it turns out that the Chron. reporters were used as tools by prosecutors, however, I will question the paper's judgement.

 

So, if a reporter is fed false information -- like, say, on an Iraqi weapons program -- and publishes that, our support for that person should be immediate and unconditional?
I'll buy the T-shirt, but I won't buy that.

 

If the government wants to jail a reporter for doing honest work, yes, my support for that reporter is immediate and unconditional.

 

But the reporter in my hypothetical is not doing honest work.
If he's being fed bad information by people with an obvious agenda, and he fails to report that because he doesn;t want to forfeit his access, then the reporter is not doing any work at all.

 

Arguing hypotheticals makes me dizzy. My bottom line, pared to the bone: The government has no business putting any reporter in jail. There are lots of ways to deal with bad reporting besides creating excuses to erode the guarantees of the Constitution.

 

Right now, we have a benefit Judy Miller didn't. We have a benefit Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams didn't.

It's the benefit of hindsight.

All three reporters had to make a choice: do I trust this source or not? We've all been there, where we have to trust our instincts. It is the ultimate moment in reportage: where we've cultivated this source to the point where we get paid back with something juicy; something that will make a difference; something that will be talked about everywhere.

Maybe you are missing on-the-record confirmation, but you feel confident enough in your sources that you go with it. Then, you wait until proven true. I'm sure many people on this board have been there. It's an awful feeling when the denials start, an awful feeling when it takes some time to prove you right.

Or wrong.

Judy Miller was wrong. It ruined her reputation, made her a laughingstock, resulted in many innocent deaths. Every day I wake up and thank God I've never been as wrong or as fooled or as misguided about my sources as she was. If she was the one being threatened here, I couldn't defend her. Her actions have consequences, and one of the consequences is that sometimes you get punished.

There is no absolute proof that Barry Bonds used steroids, but there is proof that others Fainaru-Wada/Williams wrote about did. There is plenty of reason to trust their source(s), to respect their information. As for public interest, forget Bronstein's "what about the kids?" drek. What makes this important is that people care about Bonds and home-run record. People don't care that three-fifths of the Carolina Panthers NFC Champion offensive line took enough drugs to make an elephant croak, but they care about Bonds.

They did responsible reporting about a subject the public cares about. That's enough for me. This is not about protecting anonymous sources in every case. This is about protecting reporters in this case. They aren't the lawbreakers here. That's why we have to stand by them.

 

Let's be realistic here. Even those who defend the two reporters, right on down to Mr. Bronstein, aren't expecting their actions to go completely unpunished in court. The goal here is to turn jail time into a slap on the wrist (i.e., probation) by presenting the argument that, despite violating federal grand jury privacy laws, the reporters' actions did more good than harm to society. Most people who frequent this board, I think, would agree with that much.
Or do we?

 

Since "contempt" is not a "conviction" of any crime, I wouldn't think "probation" would come into play.

The reporters committed no crime and aren't facing the prospect of prosecution. They are facing the prospect of contempt of court. There's a difference.

 

But it is about defending reporters in every case. Otherwise, the whole debate is ethically incoherent. You can't ex post facto justify a universal right because the ends justify the means.
If you support these guys, you have to support Judy Miller and the Whitewater stenographers. Hold your nose if you have to, but that's the QED on this.

 

I don't think folks on the board want to look under that particular rock, FB. Much better to wrap themselves in the glory of the great journalistic cause!