1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Dave Kindred, Sep 15, 2006.

Page 4 of 13
  1. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    Glory? Where? I don't see much in this field these days.

    Is it so wrong to instinctively want to protect your own?
     
    Lugnuts, Sep 20, 2006
    #37
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    FB, This isn't about the ends and means. It's about the principle.

    The Bill of Rights protects free speech. Most people would agree that what a racist or bigot has to say is offensive. But his speech gets protected just the same. We don't distinguish between the speech we like and the speech we don't. We protect all speech to keep the principle intact.

    It's the same thing here. I'm with Dave on this. There is a principle involved. No reporter should be compelled to divulge an anonymous source, even if your (or someone else's) ethical judgment is that the reporter didn't give careful enough thought before granting anonymity. That is a judgment call. And the minute you allow judgment calls to enter into the equation, you may as well kiss the principle goodbye. It'd be the same as saying, "Free speech, except for the racist." The next thing you know, the government is calling anyone it wants to harass a racist. Or in this case, it'd find the exception to the shield law (if a Federal law ever gets passed).

    What you are suggesting is an "industry policing itself" issue. I think we need to be very careful to make that a separate and distinct conversation, because the risk is that you do get a shield law, except with the government trying to police the industry. That would be a disaster.

    We need to establish a Federal shield law that makes this an inalienable right. At the same time, it would be great to have the discussion about the pitfalls of granting anonymity, the responsibilities that go along with it and where your protection of the source ends (for example, are all bets off if you find out the source lied to you or used you?).

    But the most pressing thing right now is getting the shield law in place and protecting the principle.
     
    The Big Ragu, Sep 20, 2006
    #38
  3. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member


    As a reflex it seems perfectly natural but I think good journalists need to be wary of the instinct. Otherwise there would be no objective reporting about the state of journalism.
     
    cranberry, Sep 20, 2006
    #39
  4. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member



    Excellent, well-considered post. I don't know if I agree that the two issues must be separated, though. I think a better battle could be picked to fight for the principle and more -- not less -- attention must be paid to the issue of using good judgement in granting anonymity. The bigger issue might be whether the public trusts journalists to make these type of judgement calls.
     
    cranberry, Sep 20, 2006
    #40
  5. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    But on the whole 'agenda' thing, cran, I've never heard of a source that doesn't have one. Whether it's a high school football player who wants his name in the paper or Mark Feld, everybody does interviews for a reason.

    It's the journalist's job to consider the agenda and go with what he thinks is right. Is there any evidence the Chron guys messed up on that front? I haven't seen it.
     
    Lugnuts, Sep 20, 2006
    #41
  6. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    As I've mentioned many times, at least once on this page: 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.

    All sources aren't the same. There's a big difference between protecting a well-meaning whistle-blower and someone who's illegally leaking a grand jury transcript for the purpose of influencing a legal case.

    In this situation, the feds obviously seem to think their might have been some illegality in the leaking of the transcripts and the prosecutors seem to have been the primary beneficiaries of the leak. But at this point, though, only the Chron. editors and reporters and the "source" know the truth in this situation.
     
    cranberry, Sep 20, 2006
    #42
  7. Fenian_Bastard

    Fenian_Bastard Guest

    Ends justifying means there, Luggie. There are agendas and then there are agendas. There are real whistleblowers and then there are prosecutors trying to win a case in the press that they can't win in court. Regardless of where you stand on shield laws, there is a difference in the agendas that ought to give us pause.
    Ragu -- We've done a piss-poor job regulating ourselves and this case in SF is the result. The NYT said it was going to toughen up on anonymous sources in the wake of the Jayson Blair and Judy Miller debacles. Has it? Read the paper and give me an honest run, as Harry Hogge says.
    If the government can pass a shield law, by the way, it can determine who is covered by it and who is not. (NY has been wrestling with that one for a while.)
     
    Fenian_Bastard, Sep 20, 2006
    #43
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Whether or not the public trusts the industry is something that works itself out in the marketplace for information and news. If the source of the news has proved itself reliable in the past, it earns the public's trust. If it hasn't proved itself, it doesn't.

    Not to beat my free speech analogy into the ground, but it is an inalienable right. It doesn't mean that there aren't people saying crazy things. But people tune out the kook who says he talks to aliens and they pay attention to the guy who has intelligent things to say. The marketplace for ideas is pretty efficient.

    Same thing with news. If you prove yourself a solid reporter, who is consistently right, the public is going to trust you. If you don't, you'll get ignored. If you remember, during the Watergate reporting, there were initial doubts about whether Woodward and Bernstein had it right. People were suspicious, and when they did get one particular story wrong, they lost some trust. But over time, when their reporting was proved right, they earned the trust of their readers. It was as if there was a marketplace for news, and in order to get people to buy their news, they had to produce a reliable product. Markets like this tend to be very efficient.
     
    The Big Ragu, Sep 20, 2006
    #44
  9. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    Fenian, cran: You make great points, you always do, but I'm going to give the reporters the benefit of the doubt -- admittedly probably because of that instinct-reflex we discussed above.

    If it comes out they screwed up, I'll admit I was wrong.

    I think a fundamental difference here is that some view "America's court system" as something you just don't mess with. Others put "journalism" and its duties above even the court system in certain situations.
     
    Lugnuts, Sep 20, 2006
    #45
  10. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Interesting that Poynter Institute is open to the possibility that the reporters may have used poor judgement in granting the anonymity. This from today's Chronicle story:

    Newsrooms have responded to the changing atmosphere. More than half of the country's major newspapers have tightened their rules about the use of confidential sources, estimated Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in Florida.

    Poynter has not taken a position on The Chronicle's battle with the Justice Department. While praising the impact of The Chronicle's articles, McBride said, "I don't know that it outweighed the ethical obligations to the grand jury procedure and its proceedings."

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/20/MNGNDL90AR1.DTL
     
    cranberry, Sep 20, 2006
    #46
  11. Fenian_Bastard

    Fenian_Bastard Guest

    Cue dyepack.
    3...2..1...
     
    Fenian_Bastard, Sep 20, 2006
    #47
  12. shockey

    shockey Active Member

    agree 100 percent with you, mizzou. except you COULDN'T care less.

    that's just a pet peeve of mine. no offense intended. it's an all-too common misspeak. makes me crazy.

    end of mini-rant.
     
    shockey, Sep 20, 2006
    #48
Page 4 of 13
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page