SF Chronicle reporters sentenced to jail

[BloodAtFirstBite]

SF reporters to be jailed for refusing to reveal grand jury leak

By MARCUS WOHLSEN, Associated Press Writer

September 21, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Two San Francisco Chronicle reporters were sentenced to a maximum 18 months in prison Thursday, pending an appeal, for refusing to testify about who leaked them secret grand jury testimony from Barry Bonds and other elite athletes.

Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada published a series of articles and a book based partly on the leaked transcripts of the testimony of Bonds, Jason Giambi and others before a grand jury investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, a Burlingame-based nutritional supplement company exposed as a steroid ring two years ago.

Federal prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White to send the pair to prison for the full term of the grand jury investigating the leak, or until they agree to testify. Both sides have agreed to stay the ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White pending an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

[NJTank]

What a fiasco this turning into.

[Jigga]

Good.

[Sodboy13]

If crap like this was allowed to go down in 1974, Nixon might have served his two full terms, and Woodward and Bernstein would have gone to the slammer, and might be regarded as enemies of the state.

Don't pay attention to the First Amendment slowly eroding away, over there. By the time it's gone, you'll hardly remember we used to have one.

[Mac the Knife]

Campers, journalists have gone through this countless times. They have to preserve the integrity of their sources in order to get honest, accurate information. The courts have to threaten, and if necessary imprison, them in order to say they attempted to get legally required information.

It's an occupational hazard to an extent.

That being said, I'd like them to reveal the source, if only to demonstrate that they got the goods on that Bonds.

[The_Admiral]

Good.

Why?

[harperdc]

Good.

Why?

yes, because - though I understand their motive - I can't agree with throwing journalists away for keeping sources anonymous. Without the existence of the ability to keep sources anonymous, many whistleblowers would not step forward and the press would not be able to do it's job as the 'fourth estate,' keeping the government and business honest in their proceedings.

I don't think journalists ever like to keep sources anonymous - staring down jail time isn't exactly fun, and I know the paper I'm working on now almost never grants anonymity - but in some very select cases, it's warranted, and I would grant that it is warranted in this case as well.

[rams80]

If crap like this was allowed to go down in 1974, Nixon might have served his two full terms, and Woodward and Bernstein would have gone to the slammer, and might be regarded as enemies of the state.

Don't pay attention to the First Amendment slowly eroding away, over there. By the time it's gone, you'll hardly remember we used to have one.

Where in the First Amendment does it say the media is allowed to report leaked SECRET Grand Jury testimony?

I'm all for protecting sources...when the sources aren't in the process of committing felonies.

[jkrdevil]

If crap like this was allowed to go down in 1974, Nixon might have served his two full terms, and Woodward and Bernstein would have gone to the slammer, and might be regarded as enemies of the state.

Don't pay attention to the First Amendment slowly eroding away, over there.  By the time it's gone, you'll hardly remember we used to have one.

Where in the First Amendment does it say the media is allowed to report leaked SECRET Grand Jury testimony?

I'm all for protecting sources...when the sources aren't in the process of committing felonies.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

18 months in prison? Didn't Conte and Anderson only get 4? This is a little ridiculous. It's not like they leaked the grand jury testimon of someone who testified against the mob. They exposed people who committed a crime and were hiding behind their grand jury testimony. National Security was not comprimised and no one was put into harms way. These two reporters help bring to light a social problem in America. This is not the case to jail reports for not giving up their source and thus run the risk of reducing the freedom of the press.

Imagine you are these two reporters and you are investigating this story and you are able to get a copy of the grand jury testimony. Do you not run the story? Of course you would. I for one applaud them for upholding their professional ethics.

Also has anyone else notice that by basically going after the reports the governments has basically confirmed that what they wrote is true.

[Fred T. Jane]

Imagine you are these two reporters and you are investigating this story and you are able to get a copy of the grand jury testimony. Do you not run the story? Of course you would. I for one applaud them for upholding their professional ethics.

Colour me as a do-gooder, but I'd turn them down and report them to the Grand Jury. Sorry, money and fame aren't enough of a temptation to break the law.

No matter how anyone tries to paint the situation, the facts are clear; the two reporters are in contempt of court for hiding the identities of someone who illegally obtained secret testimony. Give up the sources, and they walk free. They want to pretend that they are martyrs and go to jail for their "principles?" Fine. They made their beds, so they'd better be ready to lie in it for up to 18 months (with Bubba and Ray Ray, of course... )

[harperdc]

Imagine you are these two reporters and you are investigating this story and you are able to get a copy of the grand jury testimony. Do you not run the story? Of course you would. I for one applaud them for upholding their professional ethics.

Colour me as a do-gooder, but I'd turn them down and report them to the Grand Jury. Sorry, money and fame aren't enough of a temptation to break the law.

No matter how anyone tries to paint the situation, the facts are clear; the two reporters are in contempt of court for hiding the identities of someone who illegally obtained secret testimony. Give up the sources, and they walk free. They want to pretend that they are martyrs and go to jail for their "principles?" Fine. They made their beds, so they'd better be ready to lie in it for up to 18 months (with Bubba and Ray Ray, of course... )

you're not doing it for "fame and money"; you're doing it because this is newsworthy. Okay, it's not digging up what was found in the Watergate investigations, but it is major news within the sports world. These two reporters are, dare I say it, the only two individuals working altruistically in this whole case. Baseball is trying to cover it's ass; obviously Conte, all of BALCO, and many players are trying to cover theirs; these reporters are just trying to find the truth.

yet somehow they get more jail time than the people who are really responsible.

Journalists do not just throw secret sources, leaked information and anonymity around loosely. Journalistic ethics is a HUGE topic of debate within the industry, and places like the Poynter Institute are places where journalists debate the right and wrong about cases just like this.

for what it's worth, the understanding of the rule I have and that my college's independent student newspaper abides by is that if we, as reporters and journalists, did not do anything illegal ourselves to acquire the information - meaning stealing it or co-ercing it from a source at all - than we are not held responsible.

[Fred T. Jane]

for what it's worth, the understanding of the rule I have and that my college's independent student newspaper abides by is that if we, as reporters and journalists, did not do anything illegal ourselves to acquire the information - meaning stealing it or co-ercing it from a source at all - than we are not held responsible.

Too bad the US Code begs to differ...

[harperdc]

and what, pray tell, is the "US Code"? I know the Constitution, and I can point to articles on journalistic ethics...sorry, I'm a college junior and I've never heard of a "US Code".

[Fred T. Jane]

and what, pray tell, is the "US Code"? I know the Constitution, and I can point to articles on journalistic ethics...sorry, I'm a college junior and I've never heard of a "US Code".

US Code is the laws of the land. They state rather clearly, that protecting the identity of someon who committed a crime is a crime, and these laws are are well-supported by judicial precedent, which states that the First Amendment does not protect the Press from shielding the identity of someone who broke the law, which is the case here. (The Creamery's resident Barrister can clear this up better than I, but the legal precedent is there)

At the maximum (let's say the Government Procecutor's dog died, the Giants lose game 7 of the World Series in Extra Innings, and the case against BALCO & Co. falls apart disastrously... all on the same day) they could be charged with Obstruction of Justice, as they are preventing the procecution of someone who committed a crime. However, this is about as hard of a slap they're going to get.

I'll be straightforward here and state that I'm not opposed to reporters revealing their sources, but in this case, their source broke the law, and that take precedent over their duties as a reporter, so they should reveal the source. Keeping Grand Jury testimony secret is pretty important to the judicial system, and if there's a witness that can bring the house down on BALCO & Co. who's timid about testifying because of the leaks, how will the reporters aid the cause of justice if they don't reveal their source? Of course, they didn't do much to help their cause by basically insulting the judge by asking that their punishment for contempt of court be a nominal fine and short house arrest.

[rams80]

If crap like this was allowed to go down in 1974, Nixon might have served his two full terms, and Woodward and Bernstein would have gone to the slammer, and might be regarded as enemies of the state.

Don't pay attention to the First Amendment slowly eroding away, over there.  By the time it's gone, you'll hardly remember we used to have one.

Where in the First Amendment does it say the media is allowed to report leaked SECRET Grand Jury testimony?

I'm all for protecting sources...when the sources aren't in the process of committing felonies.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

18 months in prison? Didn't Conte and Anderson only get 4? This is a little ridiculous. It's not like they leaked the grand jury testimon of someone who testified against the mob. They exposed people who committed a crime and were hiding behind their grand jury testimony. National Security was not comprimised and no one was put into harms way. These two reporters help bring to light a social problem in America. This is not the case to jail reports for not giving up their source and thus run the risk of reducing the freedom of the press.

Imagine you are these two reporters and you are investigating this story and you are able to get a copy of the grand jury testimony. Do you not run the story? Of course you would. I for one applaud them for upholding their professional ethics.

Also has anyone else notice that by basically going after the reports the governments has basically confirmed that what they wrote is true.

The First Amendment Rights of freedom of the press were in regards to censorship, NOT covering up for someone who committed a felony.

That is against the fracking law of the land, and it has been for some time. (Before anyone else brings up Deep Throat, I don't think he committed any felonies with what he leaked.)

Oh wait...it's shining a light on a social problem, so aiding and abetting a felony is justified then, right? (And my feelings about the altruism of these reporters is tempered by my personal cynicism that for the media, anything goes if it means a Pulitzer.)

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe such testimony is kept secret for a reason? To encourage honesty perhaps? (which is kind of sad considering perjury's illegal and all that.)

Unfortunately, over the last couple of decades, the media has grown to interpret freedom of the press to mean "there can be no secrets anywhere, even if its probably against the public good." IMO they also feel that it is an automatic "Get out of Jail Free Card" if they do, in fact, do something wrong. (Holy mama, I'm entering the wrong profession; I should've been a journalist so I could get away with murder.)

Sending these guys to jail is not censoring them. It's enforcing the law of the land.

(Although it might also help to serve the purpose of reminding the media that some secrets need to be kept, such as in regards to day to day planning of operations in Iraq or protecting foreign intelligence sources.)

(Note: nowhere in this post do I defend the goverment's sentencing of Conte et al; they should be in the slammer longer.)

[CaolinaJoe]

Altruism? Pleeeeease! They wrote a book. That book cost money to buy. That money went in their pockets. They'll spend a few weeks in jail, get lots of FREE publicity and make more money.

Ethics in media? That's another one that makes me laugh. They are accomplices to a felony.

[FiddySicks]

Anyone else think theres even a slight possibility that these guys dont really have anything? Now sure ill admit im bias, but what would really be the difference in a penalty of obstruction of justice and slandering someone elses name with false information? Anyone else think theyd rather serve some time and rake in the dough than end up broke and creditless?

Just a thought though....

[STL FANATIC]

I have no idea whether 18 months is the right sentence, but they did break the law, and they deserve to be punished accordingly.

I find it unfortunate, because I find their investigation to be a worthwhile one, and I don't want people to be discouraged from doing investigations like that.

But the law is the law, and it is there for good reason.

[harperdc]

I can't believe you people are so narrow-minded.

are these reporters not doing a service by trying to dig out the truth in this story?

read this, an ESPN.com editorial on why this is the incorrect decision. I'll do you one better and post a short highlight:

That's the question posed often by non-journalist friends of mine: Why should these two men have more protection than Anderson? What is the difference?

There is one. There is a difference between a steroids dealer who is covering for his friend and two hardworking journalists. Look, Anderson might be a very nice man. He certainly is a loyal friend. But he's hardly an innocent bystander in all of this. He did time for dealing harmful performance-enhancing drugs.

Mark and Lance? Their biggest mistake, it seems, was doing too good a job of exposing steroid use. Sure, their work got them a book deal and accolades. But it also got them 18 months. I've won journalism awards. They ain't worth 18 months.

These reporters were assigned a story, did it well and, in the process, sparked a national debate that did big things like teach kids about the danger of steroids and small things like help force a sport to clean up its act. In the end, those are the only relevant facts to me. They provided a public service, worked long hours, endured criticism and dead ends, pursuing the truth.

Funny, isn't that what the government is supposed to do?

In the end, it seems that the only people with pure motives in this entire saga are Williams and Fainaru-Wada.

Bonds and the rest of the BALCO athletes allegedly took steroids to cheat the games they play. They're a part of this because of their egos.

The U.S. attorneys have become so obsessed with winning this case -- seems to be going around these days -- that they're missing the forest for the trees. For all the talk of wanting to expose those who abuse steroids, they asked for the stiffest possible penalty for two men who actually did the thing they so desperately want to do.

the amount of care taken in a story like this is massive. Incorrect reporting can hurt the reputation of not only the writers, but those who assigned them the story - the newspaper or magazine...and that's not even to mention that they represent all journalists as well.

sentencing two reporters to jail time sets a bad precedent - without the possibility of reporting anonymously, many sources would not come forward to blow the whistle on many important issues. Would the world be a better place if Woodward and Bernstein could not use Deep Throat's testimony, because he was leaking classified information anonymously? while this BALCO case is clearly not nearly as important as revealing the secrets of a terrible administration, it is important to contemporary sports because steroids have terribly tainted baseball and hang, threatening, over most every other organized sport in the nation, all the way down to the high school level in most of them in many cases.

should two reporters be punished for doing their jobs correctly? they felt that this testimony was legitimate and important enough to bring into their investigation - an investigation conducted for the public good of a sport. And somehow they get more jail time than those directly guilty and responsible for supplying steroids to athletes?

[Mac the Knife]

US Code is the laws of the land. They state rather clearly, that protecting the identity of someon who committed a crime is a crime, and these laws are are well-supported by judicial precedent, which states that the First Amendment does not protect the Press from shielding the identity of someone who broke the law, which is the case here.

Fred, can you cite your USC reference?

/knows the Code far more intimately than I'd like to admit to.