armchairgm
all sports, all you
+ Add Friends
You are not logged-in.
Sign Up - Log In
Main Page
Sports
Write
Articles
Hot Links
Images
Meet People
Fun
Explore
MLB - NFL - NBA - NHL - College Basketball - College Football - Soccer - Nascar - Other
Article - Locker Room Discussion
All Articles - New Articles - Today's Articles
Submit a Link - Approve Links
Picture Game - Ratings - Polls - Pick Game - Quiz Game - Spring Silliness
Random Page - Random Image - Random Fan
Edit
Page history Discuss pageWhat links here

Under Arrest For Doing Your Job

10
Vote

by user J Cunningham

San Francisco Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, famous for their two-year-long investigative story on the BALCO steroids scandal and the tell-all best-seller Game of Shadows, were sentenced to as many as 18 months in prison for refusing to reveal their source to a federal grand jury Thursday.

The sentence will not take effect until after the reporters appeal to a circuit court.

Now, bear with me, because I'm about to ask a very "duh" question: what exactly did Williams and Fainaru-Wada do wrong? Is there some law I'm missing that states reporters must reveal their sources?

I realize leaking grand jury testimony--which their source did in providing the reporters with the information used in both the Chronicle and Game of Shadows--is illegal, but we need to remember the reporters weren't the leak. Williams and Fainaru-Wada did not break the law; their source did.

But who is this source? The reporters aren't saying, nor should they. I studied journalism in college, and one of the first things I was taught was that you never reveal your sources. This won't really matter to the beat writers who spend their lives covering games and practices, but for the investigative journalists among us, this credo is gold.

Think about it: if these reporters talk to keep out of jail (which I don't think they will), their careers are over. Once they're out of jail, they can never be journalists again, because by talking and revealing their source, they've compromised a trust between reporters and their sources.

But more than that, whistleblowers as a whole won't be so quick to blow said whistle anymore, because they won't be certain whether or not the reporters they'd be dealing with would keep their confidentiality. If a source can't trust a reporter, that reporter's not going to get any information, and he won't be able to do his job nearly as effectively.

So the reporters would be right to keep their mouths shut and probably end up behind bars for some really asanine reason. Ignoring the potential societal impact their investigation has had, let's examine the nature of a grand jury testimony.

There are no defense attorneys in the room during a grand jury hearing, nor is there any media. The only people in the room during a hearing are the prosecuter(s), the judge, a clerk, the 12 jurors, and whoever's testifying that day.

So here's a novel thought...maybe the leak came from one of them? Maybe one of those several people were Williams and Fainaru-Wada's source?

And if that's the case, why not interview and investigate them to find out the leak, as opposed to picking on two harmless reporters who, by the very nature of their profession, are sworn to never reveal who they get their information from?

Because we need a scapegoat, and these days...who better to be that scapegoat than the media?

Never mind how their investigation into BALCO opened our eyes into how deep and prevalent steroid use is in professional athletics. Forget how their stories and their book brought about the beginnings of positive change, in the form of tougher testing and potential legislation.

And let's ignore President George W. Bush commending these men on a job well done; they won't give up their source, so they must be a menace to society and therefore belong behind bars.

Please!

And, having read both their Chronicle pieces and Game of Shadows, most of the information is prevalent in both. If anything, the book merely collects all their Chronicle work and puts it all in one place, so whoever wanted to read it could have it all right then and there without having to sift through archives and the like.

The point is, though, that Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada did nothing wrong. They did not break the law, so as far as I'm concerned, they don't belong in prison. Whoever gave them their information does, however, even if I think going after the reporters to find out who the leak was is a pointless and fraudulent endeavor.

But to pick on the reporters? To me, that's the very definition of weak.


Date

Fri 09/22/06, 8:22 am EST


Enable Comment Auto-Refresher
I am a cpcpMajor Leaguer
1164 days ago
Score 2+-
You have to wonder why the words and phrases: "Woodward" "Bernstein" "Watergate" "Deep Throat" "All the Presidents Men" and "Washington Post" aren't being brought up more often. Those two were made heroes and their story became famous for not revealing their sources.
Permalink | Reply
I am a cpcpMajor Leaguer
1164 days ago
Score 0+-
I forgot the obvious word "Nixon" and also the highjinks-filled mockumentary "Dick"
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
1164 days ago
Score 0+-
They didn't leak Grand jury testimony, they burglarized a hotel room.
Permalink
J CunninghamVarsity Captain
1164 days ago
Score 0+-
And yet these two are being criticized and possibly persecuted for the exact same thing. What a wonderful country we live in, huh?
Permalink | Reply
I am a cpcpMajor Leaguer
1164 days ago
Score 2+-
Exactly. Land of the free, home of the brave on a case-by-case basis.
Permalink
BigPPupMajor Leaguer
1164 days ago
Score 0+-
Yeah, but lets be real, political scandle and rigging an election, and trying to catch some baseball players on steroids. Not on the level at all. The Watergate scandle was a huge moment in American history because it shook the nation and the world and ended in the change of power in the most powerful job in the world. These two from San Fran broke a big story but its about baseball. They should not be compared from the writers in watergate and calling these two heros is a far stretch.
Permalink | Reply
TartanVarsity Captain
1164 days ago
Score 5+-
I can think of many examples of how one can break the law by doing their jobs. Please don't ask me to list them, because I'm sure you can too. Regardless, they profited from illegally obtained information. They weren't doing it for the public good. They also weren't doing it to hurt America's judicial system, although they did. Their motivations are irrelevant. They committed an illegal act (guilty verdict) and now are being punished for it. You cannot suspend the laws of this country on a case by case basis. The government is correct in its searching for a leak in its judiciary system. America's court system is one of the things that makes this country great, and people that undermine it for profit should be penalized accordingly.
Permalink | Reply
ASwaffAll-American
1164 days ago
Score 1+-
Why is everyone so concerned about the fact that they made money? If they had released the same information on a non-profit newsletter, would you actually feel any differently about the fact that they leaked sealed testimony? Please stop hiding behind that sanctimonious argument. Nobody's buying it.
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
1164 days ago
Score -1+-
Release the book with the SAME info, but without quoting the source (testimony) then it's just conjecture and heresay...and they would NEVER have been able to sell the book... You cannot profit or gain from illegally gained materials. Simple as that. What is your argument FOR them??
Permalink
TartanVarsity Captain
1164 days ago
Score 0+-
By the way, you're about 3 hours late with this piece, its already been written about.
Permalink | Reply
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
1164 days ago
Score 0+-
Hello? They PROFITED from stolen, illegally acquired information. It is against the law to leak Grand Jury testimony. However, when you start benefitting from that, Johhny Law isn't going to look the other way. Freedom of the Press, Yes. Undermining the foundation of the legal structure we have all agreed to uphold.

If you part of a grand jury investigation and were threatened by seedy individuals not to testify and told testimony to a grand jury anyway, wouldn't you want to be sure that it wasn't leaked.

just because it's a sports story, or has relevance to public issues doesn't mean the ramifications don't permeate beyond the courtroom or a low-level journalist's career.

They knew what they were doing. Thye were wrong for doing it. They chose being paid handsomely over integrity. Show me writers who say they would do the exact same thing as these douche bags. Maybe you're failing to see the REAL issue.
Permalink | Reply
ChachiOSUDraft Pick
1164 days ago
Score 0+-
Also, as much as you learned in jounalism class to never reveal your source, the Supreme Court has ruled that in many cases a writer has a legal obligation to reveal their source. Freedom of the press, except when breaking the law.
Permalink
Anonymous Fanatic #1
1164 days ago
Score 0+-
I still maintain the writers themselves never broke the law; their source did. Their source was the one who leaked the testimony, which is the illegals act. The writers simply used that information in an investigative piece the San Francisco Chronicle told them to write. As far as I'm concerned, taking that same information and writing a book is irrelevant; the judicial system is not punishing them for Game of Shadows; it's punishing them for not coming forth with the identity of their source, the one who really did break the law. And I still believe if they were to reveal the source's identity, the face of investigative journalism would change, because potential sources would be wary of blowing any whistles if they feared their identities would be revealed.
Permalink | Reply
ChachiOSUDraft Pick
1164 days ago
Score 0+-
I agree that they shouldn't reveal their source, but I was just mentioning that they had no legal cover in this case. If your buddy shoots someone and you right a book about it does it the authorities are going to want to know who it is, don't you think? That is a bit of an extreme example, but I couldn't think of a better way to put it. Yes, this guy did not shoot anyone, but he did break a law and these gentlemen are refusing to testify. Therefore they suffer the consequences. The legal system is put into place to cover the cases from big to small and if you start making exceptions it can have undesireable effects down the road.
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
1164 days ago
Score 0+-
they are harboring a criminal in essence.
Permalink
I am a cpcpMajor Leaguer
1164 days ago
Score 0+-
When I posted my article about itegrity on this site, Xinoph responded (and Manny affirmed) "If integrity is the most important thing in your life, don't be a journalist." A journalist's job is to report the news, they did not break the law. A reporter has the right to hide his or her sources. I don't remember the law stating so, but I'm pretty sure there is on that protects the journalists right to protect their sources. It's like doctor/patient confidentiality.


As far as them making money off of it, that was their integrity they chose to give up and it really has nothing to do with a criminal case.
Permalink | Reply
I am a cpcpMajor Leaguer
1164 days ago
Score 0+-
For the record, there is no federal shield law to allow journalists to protect sources, I was incorrect.


But there should be one...
Permalink
J CunninghamVarsity Captain
1164 days ago
Score 0+-
I think I heard Pedro Gomez say on AllNight on ESPN Radio last night there's a bill working its way through Congress that serves as exactly that--a shield for journalists. I'd have to do a bit of digging around to find that out, but I did pick up that little nugget last night.
Permalink
I am a cpcpMajor Leaguer
1164 days ago
Score 0+-
The identity of anonymous sources is sometimes revealed to senior editors or a news organization's lawyers, who would be considered bound by the same confidentiality. (Lawyers are generally protected from subpoena in these cases by attorney/client privilege.) Legal staff may need to give counsel about whether or not it is advisable to publish certain information, or about court proceedings that may attempt to learn confidential information. Senior editors are in the loop to prevent reporters from fabricating non-existent, anonymous sources, and to provide a second opinion about how to use the information obtained, how or how not to identify sources, and whether or not other options should be pursued.
Permalink | Reply
SashaDiv-I Stud
1164 days ago
Score 0+-
These men are still allowing people who did illegal things to remain free. And if you think the money has nothing to do with it fine, take the money away from the guys that was made from the book, then see how long it takes for us to learn who leaked the info.
Permalink | Reply
DennisODellTee-Baller
1164 days ago
Score 1+-
J Cunningham, I'm guessing you've not read Branzburg v Hayes? ttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=408&invol=665
Permalink | Reply
J CunninghamVarsity Captain
1163 days ago
Score 0+-
I can't get that page to load.
Permalink
DennisODellTee-Baller
1162 days ago
Score 1+-
sorry, try http://casel...mp;invol=665
Permalink | Reply
Anonymous Fanatic #2
1161 days ago
Score -1+-
To say that these reporters did it for the money is outrageous. They had the chance to break the story of the year, and they siezed the oppertunity.
Permalink | Reply
False ProphetAll-Star
1161 days ago
Score 0+-
sorry, diddnt log in
Permalink | Reply
Bias asideSoccer Kid
1161 days ago
Score 0+-
Guess what? "I am a cpcp" broke the law by not ......revealing his source....... plagiarism? (_E=mc2_)

Seriously, If anyone thinks that these guys didn't know what they were getting into, well, think harder.

Protecting a source is a matter of integrity, not the law.

Lets say, hypothetically, that protecting a source such as this one is very similar to your BEST friend telling you that last week he had found a bank bag with Bank of America written on it and $1,500.00 in it. He didn't return it. He broke the law. Now he invites you to the SEC championship game (that's what he spent the money on)and asks for your word that you will not tell ANYONE!! You swear you won't by giving him your word. A week later, the police are at your house about to arrest you because, get this, on the day your BEST friend found the money, he had borrowed your car! Someone was seen picking up this bank bag from your car! The cops know you were at work all day the day that the money was lost, but they also know that the person who took it was using your car, and seeing that you haven't reported it stolen, they seem to think you have some idea who was in your car that day. They threaten you with jail time. Integrity or self preservation?

A FEDERAL judge ordered a FEDERAL subpoena to obtain information from them. If it were you, and you didn't talk, you'd be in jail.

What makes a "sportswriter" soo special?

(_!_)
Permalink | Reply
J CunninghamVarsity Captain
1160 days ago
Score -1+-
I don't really see much of a parallel there. In the example you cite, the question is one of personal integrity. In the case of the San Francisco Chronicle reporters, however. the question is one of professional integrity. Not revealing their source was not a personal decision for Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada; it was a professional one. No journalist, in any department of news, reveals his or her source, because if a source fears potential identification and consequence (be it loss of job or federal prosecution), the reporters would never get their information and the stories would not be published or aired. Is it evil? Probably, but in the field of journalism--particularly investigative journalism--it's a necessary one.

Ignore for a moment the book Game of Shadows. If the reporters don't write those pieces for the Chronicle on BALCO, we're probably not as far along in the crusade to rid professional athletics of performance-enhancing drugs. Say what you will about their source or what they made off the book, but without that source, and without the stories, the steroids issue is at a stand-still. I can't get behind putting the reporters in jail for something a lot of people consider a good public service.

I do, however, feel their source belongs in bars, because they were the ones to break the law, leaking grand jury testimony. But as I said in the opinion, there are other ways to find the leak than to go after the reporters. Williams and Fainaru-Wada were merely acting not out of personal integrity (truth is, journalists sometimes have to sacrifice that), but out of professional integrity.

Using your example: if you rat on your friend, your life isn't ruined or turned upside down. You might lose a friend, but by and large your life stays the same. In the case of the reporters, giving up their source would result in them likely losing their jobs--at the very least their sources. If Williams and Fainaru-Wada gave in and talked, they would never work asa journalists again.
Permalink
Bias asideSoccer Kid
1159 days ago
Score 0+-
Please do not assume that I don't understand the implications of a journalist revealing a source that wishes to remain anonymous, or try to turn the topic into an academic debate of semantics.

Integrity IS a personal quality, some have it and some do not. It's a good thing they're doing, and it shows integrity. I respect that, in and of itself! But the point of my post was, in spite of integrity(personal or professional), they refused to comply with a federal subpoena, therefore, they should be treated the same as anyone else in the same situation.

And not revealing their source(s) WAS a personal decision. Why? No one else is going to go to jail for them! They have integrity. Of course they could have done the opposite, and that would have affected their professional carriers beyond repair.

If you do not possess integrity on a personal level, then you are not going to have it professionally. Again, I was simply trying to say why should a sportswriter be treated any differently when it comes to breaking the law? It's obvious some people think that if you are a person who possesses integrity, you should somehow be "magically" shielded from the law. I do not.

It is still at the core simply being honest, doing the right thing and accepting the consequences of those actions. I respect what they're doingnow, not what they done.
Permalink | Reply
Add your Comment
ArmchairGM welcomes all comments. If you don't want to be anonymous, Register or Login. It's free


Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Under_Arrest_For_Doing_Your_Job"

This page was last modified 13:45, 22 September 2006. Content is available under the GFDL.

Contribute

ArmchairGM's pages can be edited.
Is this page incomplete? Is there anything wrong?
Change it!

Edit this page Discuss this page Page history

Recent contributors to this page

The following people recently contributed to this article.

Embed this on your site

Main Page About Special Pages Help Terms of Use Advertise