SF Chronicle reporters sentenced to jail

[CaolinaJoe]

harperdc, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you're a journalism major?

Obviously, as in your ESPN excerpt, other journalist are going to support them. It serves their own interests to support these and others like them.

What is the difference between them not testifying as to who the leak was, a criminal offense, and someone else not testifying? Anderson is in jail also for not telling what he might now about someone who did something illegal.

As far as precedent goes, many reporters have gone to jail for not revealing sources. So, this is nothing unusual. Refuse to testify and run the risk of contempt.

[CaolinaJoe]

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.

Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding. Secrecy was originally designed to protect the grand jurors from improper pressures. The modern justifications are to prevent the escape of people whose indictment may be contemplated, to ensure that the grand jury is free to deliberate without outside pressure, to prevent subornation of perjury or witness tampering prior to a subsequent trial, to encourage people with information about a crime to speak freely, and to protect the innocent accused from disclosure of the fact that he or she was under investigation.

[jkrdevil]

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....

Well remember the government and the prosecutors know what was said in the Grand Jury. Since they are going after them to find out the leak that must mean someone leaked them the testimony. If they had made up what people had said in the grand jury room they would have nothing to hold them in contempt in court on as there would be no source and the government would know that. So by going after these 2 reporters the government is basically confirming what the 2 wrote are true and it's the actual grand jury testimony.

Slander isn't a criminal charge it's a civil charge.

[rams80]

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.

As has been elaborated earlier-sports reporters are not going to throw two of their own under the bus.

But...

I have to question the purity of their motives considering the royalties they made from the book and the free publicity they are getting with this furor.

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.

I don't think anyone's accusing them of slander or libel here (otherwise Barry probably would have sued their es at this point.) They did their research; unfortunately for them, some of the research included aiding and abetting a felony.

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.

I'm not a legal expert, but I don't think Deep Throat was committing a felony when he leaked what he leaked. Protecting your sources is a good thing and should be done WHEN A CRIME HAS NOT BEEN COMMITTED.

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?

Except they didn't do their job correctly-you aren't supposed to report or leak secret Grand Jury testimony.

The ever-present cynic in me seems to think that reporting the testimony was less for the public good and more for the "we need a fracking home run statement; breaking the law is a small price to pay for that."

No defense for the jail time thing. Conte should be in jail for longer.

[mjrbaseball]

In many states (California is not one of them), there are what are known as "shield laws." They state that law enforcement officials and the courts may not compel a journalist to reveal sources.

[Jigga]

I understand why the authors (I will not call them journalists because they put all their "evidence" in a book that they are profiting from) will not give up their sources, but they are obstructing the investigation of leaked grand jury testimony.

This is not about Victor Conte and Barry Bonds, et al. This is about two authors that want to have their collective cake and eat it too. I do not give a damn about the "journalistic integrity" when it comes to protecting their sources. I do give a damn about the integrity of grand jury testimony.

Do not give me BS references to Watergate, the first amendment, etc. You cannot allow people to leak and report grand jury testimony, WHATEVER the reason. Barry Bonds' steroid use is not a matter of national security or the cover up of presidential misconduct. Simply, these two used illegal information, which they were not allowed to have, to SELL A FREAKING BOOK.

You impede a federal investigation, you go to jail for contempt of court. It is that simple. I find it odd that no one is bending over backward to give Greg Anderson the benefit of the doubt. He is not talking; he has been to trial and served his time. He does not want to tell what he knows either. Why is it okay for one to be lionized and the other to be vilified? Absurd.

[mjrbaseball]

I do not give a damn about the "journalistic integrity" when it comes to protecting their sources. I do give a damn about the integrity of grand jury testimony.

You're choosing which civil liberties to uphold and which to reject? You can't have it that way! Either you defend all of our freedoms, or you abandon all of them.

It's the same as our illustrious President saying that in order to protect our freedom, we must give up some of our freedom.

All rights ? all freedoms ? must be defended and protected at all times.

There is no inconsistency here. Think in terms of an analogious situation: What if in order to protect one of your children from serious injury, you have to permanently hurt your other child? The answer is you protect them both anyway, and sacrifice yourself to do it if necessary.

Please read the sig below. Thank you.

[rams80]

I do not give a damn about the "journalistic integrity" when it comes to protecting their sources.  I do give a damn about the integrity of grand jury testimony.

You're choosing which civil liberties to uphold and which to reject? You can't have it that way! Either you defend all of our freedoms, or you abandon all of them.

It's the same as our illustrious President saying that in order to protect our freedom, we must give up some of our freedom.

All rights ? all freedoms ? must be defended and protected at all times.

There is no inconsistency here. Think in terms of an analogious situation: What if in order to protect one of your children from serious injury, you have to permanently hurt your other child? The answer is you protect them both anyway, and sacrifice yourself to do it if necessary.

Please read the sig below. Thank you.

It's a Civil Liberty to commit a felony now? Sweet! (Drives off to fire bomb Indianapolis FOX affiliate that is showing the farking Seahag game instead of the Rams game for the 3rd week in a row. )

Ok, I'm back. Anyway, is it not also a Civil Liberty that your private, secret testimony before a Grand Jury not be revealed to the Public? Where's the Civil Liberty protection there? The journalists and the leaker violated that person's civil liberty, so they should be punished.

EDIT-can't bleeping spell.

[harperdc]

It's a Civil Liberty to commit a felony now? Sweet!

no, it's a civil liberty to have a free press report on what is going on in the world.

this case is apparently going to the 9th circuit court, and I hope they overturn the charges. Isn't this a country where we reward people for standing up for their values and having integrity? then why are the judge and prosecutor trying to throw these two men in jail for 18 months for standing on principle?

if these two journalists hadn't worked as hard as they did on this story (published both as a book and a newspaper article - wait, arent' they also glory hogging by writing this for a commercial newspaper? ZOMG gregg, they're even more baseless than you imagined!) then we would not know as much as we do now about BALCO and Bonds' involvement with them, and we may not have as much of an uproar about steroids in sports and baseball right now.

the job of journalists is to uncover the truth. Sometimes this means people get mad at you. But to uncover the truth, you sometimes have to use anonymous sources; if they could somehow find the person who leaked the testimony then send him to jail, but these reporters did nothing unethical in their attempt to uncover the truth.

I hope this gets overturned and helps strengthen possible shield laws in states of the US and perhaps even nationally.

[rams80]

It's a Civil Liberty to commit a felony now?  Sweet!

no, it's a civil liberty to have a free press report on what is going on in the world.

this case is apparently going to the 9th circuit court, and I hope they overturn the charges. Isn't this a country where we reward people for standing up for their values and having integrity? then why are the judge and prosecutor trying to throw these two men in jail for 18 months for standing on principle?

if these two journalists hadn't worked as hard as they did on this story (published both as a book and a newspaper article - wait, arent' they also glory hogging by writing this for a commercial newspaper? ZOMG gregg, they're even more baseless than you imagined!) then we would not know as much as we do now about BALCO and Bonds' involvement with them, and we may not have as much of an uproar about steroids in sports and baseball right now.

the job of journalists is to uncover the truth. Sometimes this means people get mad at you. But to uncover the truth, you sometimes have to use anonymous sources; if they could somehow find the person who leaked the testimony then send him to jail, but these reporters did nothing unethical in their attempt to uncover the truth.

I hope this gets overturned and helps strengthen possible shield laws in states of the US and perhaps even nationally.

Yes but at the same time the free press has the responsibility to help protect what should remain secret under the LAWS OF THE FRACKING LAND.

You point out the commercial newspaper...Internal cynic says "Paper sells more copies from controversy, reporters get raises for helping the paper sell more copies, joy all around!!"

9th Circuit Court will overturn it, you are correct, at which point it will get appealed to Supreme Court, which will hear the case (mainly because SCOTUS will not and probably never will let the San Francisco Circuit Court to dictate judicial policy for the country.)

I disagree with you over the steroids furor, this was building before Barry.

I also would like to point out that however ethical and pure their actions were (which I doubt), in the real world we live in ethics does answer to a much higher authority-mainly the laws of the land.

[harperdc]

"You point out the commercial newspaper...Internal cynic says "Paper sells more copies from controversy, reporters get raises for helping the paper sell more copies, joy all around!!""

I was mainly poking at somebody who was referring to the journalists as 'authors', inferring they were in it for the money only. and the economics of newspapers are dictated more by ad revenue than by subscriptions or sales - if they were, newspapers would be much more expensive.

Barry Bonds will likely go down in the records as the one who was the cornerstone of much of the steroids uproar; his case - because of the records involved - is going to be the landmark one for sports in the United States.

"I also would like to point out that however ethical and pure their actions were (which I doubt), in the real world we live in ethics does answer to a much higher authority-mainly the laws of the land."

if we followed the laws of the land to a T, this would still be a British colony; if Woodward and Bernstein hadn't broken laws and rules, we might be under more totalitarian presidential regimes. Sports is minor compared to high-level politics, but it's still a multi-billion dollar industry, baseball impacts the lives of most Americans and sport in general impacts the lives of many around the world, and this is one of the landmark cases regarding sports right now. It's not bringing down a presidency, but it's still important, and I am glad that these journalists have the courage to stand up for what is ethically right and defend baseball and sports.

would you have the courage to go to jail for 18 months for something you knew was ethically right?

[rams80]

"I also would like to point out that however ethical and pure their actions were (which I doubt), in the real world we live in ethics does answer to a much higher authority-mainly the laws of the land."

if we followed the laws of the land to a T, this would still be a British colony; if Woodward and Bernstein hadn't broken laws and rules, we might be under more totalitarian presidential regimes. Sports is minor compared to high-level politics, but it's still a multi-billion dollar industry, baseball impacts the lives of most Americans and sport in general impacts the lives of many around the world, and this is one of the landmark cases regarding sports right now. It's not bringing down a presidency, but it's still important, and I am glad that these journalists have the courage to stand up for what is ethically right and defend baseball and sports.

would you have the courage to go to jail for 18 months for something you knew was ethically right?

Actually we'd be part of Canada...

On the American Revolution; while you could make an argument that no group of people should be taxed without representatives (the breaking point between colony and Britain), we did act a little like spoiled children who wanted to have our cake and eat it too-(The British essentially were providing for our defense and wanted us to pay for it instead-makes sense over here.)

On Woodward and Bernstein...I'm not sure how may laws were broken, but you also give Nixon waaay to much credit about the potential long term effects of his Presidency. Shoot... Carter alone would have reverted a lot of the power back to Congress.

I would like to posit that it is also a Civil Liberty that your legally protected testimony before a Grand Jury not be revealed to the public. In that case, our "ethically upright" reporters and the leaker violated another person's civil liberty, and then they have the fracking gall to turn around and play that exact same card. Where is the justice there? Why should your civil liberties be protected when you violate another.

[Grish]

What happens if a witness is found in contempt?

A witness who refuses to testify without legal justification will be held in contempt of court, and is subject to incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury. A witness who testifies falsely may be separately prosecuted for perjury

above from: The American Bar Assoc.

So yes, they could be jailed by law.

Here is the delimena do they give the names, which in all likely hood would cause individuals to withdraw from providing news reporters with information? As a public citizen this might mean that things like "Watergate" fail to be reported or investigated.

mmm...

If I were them, I would very well do what they have done. You have to look at the degree of crime here. It is not life and death, it is a crime, yet we have degree of murder too. Remember too, that the idea of this testimony was to investigate evidence for prosecution, and the idea of keeping the procedings secret orignally had to do with keeping jurors from being tempted by the outside.

[harperdc]

they aren't the witnesses though - they're just forwarding what they were given. if they lured somebody to leak the testimony with money? yes, they should go to jail, but I highly doubt that would happen because that's not how journalism works; plus, their editors would put a stop to that pronto. My understanding of the rights to anonymity as newspapers grant them is that the journalist has done no wrong so long as they have not lured the source in any way, and to my knowledge in this case they haven't. if I'm wrong, point it out in print.

if they have, then I'm also the first one to call for their heads on the grounds of journalistic ethics. if I would be so enraged, imagine the society of professional journalists and many other industry groups - not to mention their editors.

so it was their source that broke in, all cat burglar-style (or whatever, I'm just dramaticizing it here) and got the testimony. perhaps there was a meeting in a dark alley during a rainstorm when the documents were passed off...but if you're a reporter trying to find the truth to a story, and if the information checks out completely and is the truth and is relevant to and strengthens the case, what do you do?

I'm positive there were many meetings between the journalists and their editors at the paper about whether they should protect their source, if they can trust that person, and whether they should run that information at all. Why not throw the editors in the clink for allowing them to run it too? aren't they also helping to protect a grand jury source?

if you do that, where is the line between protecting grand jury testimony and protecting the journalists', editors' and papers' first amendment rights?

[rams80]

My point is-exercise common sense. If the information should not be given out under the law, then do not report it. If you do report it and then won't reveal how you gained the information, you are violating the law and you should go to jail quietly and do not play the "censorship/freedom of the press" card.

Newspaper reporters and editors should recieve the exact same consideration for civil liberties that they show to others-violate them and you have no right to demand that yours be treated better.

[harperdc]

the sticking point is legality and privacy vs. a nebulous idea of "serving the public good." releasing the information may be illegal...but has it helped the public? has it properly served the audience for this story?

I'm sure that ethical discussion was made by the editors before printing the information, and I'm sure the journalists felt this was important to the story and served the public good.

it is a sticky and almost arrogant thought: we can print this because, while it may shame one person, it serves hundreds of thousands, even tens of millions. Where do you draw the line?

[rams80]

the sticking point is legality and privacy vs. a nebulous idea of "serving the public good." releasing the information may be illegal...but has it helped the public? has it properly served the audience for this story?

People are a little more sure that Barry took steroids, people know that steroids are bad, but I for one kind of figured on both things before the book. So I would debate how much the public was helped.

I'm sure that ethical discussion was made by the editors before printing the information, and I'm sure the journalists felt this was important to the story and served the public good.

I think you place a little to much on their ethics, and equal consideration was placed on sales, but ultimately that's JMCHO.

it is a sticky and almost arrogant thought: we can print this because, while it may shame one person, it serves hundreds of thousands, even tens of millions. Where do you draw the line?

You draw the line at violating the rights of the one person. If you take it upon yourself to violate that one person's civil liberties, you nullify your own rights to have them respected. Barry may be a . The people who also testified may be :censored:s. That doesn't make violating their rights and liberties acceptable. The precedent, as well as the danger to innocent people, should alone be the deterrent.

[Fred T. Jane]

There was a short story someone wrote whilst I was in college called "Freedom from the Press." It told of a United States where the Press had bullied its way into having complete immunity from oversight and procecution through crying about freedom of the press for everything. As a result, the Press did hit jobs on every one in politics they didn't like with imputiny, and would even take bribes from criminals to witness crimes, as they would have the only evidence that would convict the criminals, but would refuse to present it because they would never give up their sources because of their precious "Freedom of the Press."

Dystopian? Sure. But the attitude presented by the authors is in the same ballpark.

[harperdc]

one person's dystopian ideals shouldn't be a major factor in shaping an opinion, especially when its just one college paper article.

[rams80]

I've never heard of that paper before just now, although said dystopian ideas definitely strike a chord.

I'll leave you to ponder this. How would you feel if you made secret, legally protected testimony before a Grand Jury, only to have it leaked to the media and then published in a book? And then the media tries to dodge prosecution under the guise of "protecting sources" and "journalistic ethics". Methinks your tune would indeed change.