[SKMDC]

So less than a few months ago President Bush called them "National Heroes" and honored them at White House Correspondents Dinner, so will he now step up to the plate (Pardon the Pun!) and give them a pardon for heroically uncovering a massive steroid cabal in baseball? Or will he let Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada go to jail for not revealing their sources?

I'll give him a whole week reprieve on everything else* if he does the right thing.


*stick to the baseball/journalism aspect of this and please don't turn it into a Bush-bashing-thread-locking deal.
thanks

[709]

Wait a minute.

The whole premise of your post is about what Bush might/not do. Notwithstanding the thread title, it seems you're just asking for some Bush-bashing or Bush-wishful-thinking.

I'm ready when you are.

[thegelding]

Originally Posted by SKMDC I'll give him a whole week reprieve on everything else* if he does the right thing.

ha, so he'll pardon these two and then invade iran the next day and SKMDC won't be able to comment about that for 6 days...

g

[Moogs]

If these guys go to prison (regardless of what Bush said or does), what a pathetic statement on our judicial system. Here are two guys doing their jobs, informing the public about cheating within our national pastime, and the judge throws them in prison. Fucking backwards, man.

It shouldn't even be possible to make that judgement in a case like this. Not that no judgement should be made if there's a legal conundrum... fine them, put them on probation, whatever. But prison, for journalists who are protecting sources of very sensitive information? That's horse shit of the highest order and an assault on the concept of the free press.

[Brave Ulysses]

This whole case is an embarrassment to the American judicial system.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses This whole case is an embarrassment to the American judicial system.

Hmm, I think the whole integrity went out the windows with that wankering judge.

[SKMDC]

Originally Posted by 709 Wait a minute. The whole premise of your post is about what Bush might/not do. Notwithstanding the thread title, it seems you're just asking for some Bush-bashing or Bush-wishful-thinking. I'm ready when you are.

Where do you get that from? I'm asking whether he should pardon a journalist for not revealing a source. They are willing to go to jail to protect their word to their source. At the press dinner he stood up and called them national heroes for helping HIM rid our national pastime of steroids, one of the bullet points from his state of the union address.
The question is simple, should they receive a Presidential Pardon? This is his Attorney General, asking a judge to throw these guys in jail.


And thegelding, if President Bush wants to start a third war he doesn't appear to know how to win, my week long moratorium will hardly be of much relief to him.

[709]

My apologies. My predisposition for the man may have clouded my reading comprehension.

[Banana]

Now I've read the articles, it left me a bit dubious. In general, I'm very skeptical when a reporter cite an "anonymous" source, which could easily be his mother for all I know. I appreciate that there may be intricaties that I'm not aware of, but I guess my beef is if they're (both reporters and sources) are telling truth, what's to be afraid of? They already did the homework so they can defend their case and be immune against any potential retialation from the injured parties who want to keep their dark dirty secret secret.

[SKMDC]

Originally Posted by 709 My apologies. My predisposition for the man may have clouded my reading comprehension.

See how fair I am? I made it sound like I like the man!* (Out of respect for the office I always refer to him as President Bush.)

I think the implication of this story and how they link to the Plame affair and the way the White House is involved with both is fascinating, I can't put my finger on the meaning yet, that's why I was looking for rational discussion and thought.


*But believe me their is a countdown clock going on in my head.

[SKMDC]

Originally Posted by Banana Now I've read the articles, it left me a bit dubious. In general, I'm very skeptical when a reporter cite an "anonymous" source, which could easily be his mother for all I know. I appreciate that there may be intricaties that I'm not aware of, but I guess my beef is if they're (both reporters and sources) are telling truth, what's to be afraid of? They already did the homework so they can defend their case and be immune against any potential retialation from the injured parties who want to keep their dark dirty secret secret.

The point is they gave their word to the source (who was maybe doing something illegal by revealing the information) and as journalists they wouldn't have much of a future if they did so. What if the Justice Department had done this to Woodward & Bernstein when they were investigating Watergate?

[BarracksSi]

Originally Posted by Moogs But prison, for journalists who are protecting sources of very sensitive information? That's horse shit of the highest order and an assault on the concept of the free press.

Absolutely.

Freedom of the press, right?

What we MUST maintain is the ability of the press to report the news without fear of getting into trouble.

Dig around this site:
http://www.newseum.org/scripts/journalist/main.htm

One example

NOHAR ALI News Organization: ANIRBAN Died 2001 Location: BANGLADESH Country of Origin: BANGLADESH Bio: A correspondent for a Bengali-language newspaper in Khulna, in southeastern Bangladesh, Ali was kidnapped from his home on April 17 by masked men who made no ransom demands, according to police. Ali, 32, was found unconscious alongside a road three days later. He had been stabbed and severely beaten; his hands and legs had been broken. He died April 21. Police say a radical leftist group that frequently targets critical journalists was behind the killing. But colleagues said Ali's reporting had uncovered links between police and smuggling rings.

Killings aren't the same as prison terms, but they achieve the same goals -- stopping the passage of information, and intimidation of the people trusted to find & pass that information.

[Banana]

But see, this seems to be a implicit admission saying, "Okay, If you tell me what crime you commited, I won't tell who did it."

If the sources did something illegal, then they have to be punished. Reporters has become an accessory in this situation. If the sources did something illegal but with goals of stopping something else even worse, then courts should consider that, and if it merits, dismiss the case. That has been done before.

If the nature of activities were inherently illegal (e.g. reporters want to interview crackheads), it still would be easy for them to find facts that can be otherwise known without the sources and make the sources "details" but not the focus of the whole article. Since they've already interviewed, it's almost trivial to find the facts needed to support their case because they've took out the guessworks in investigating for facts.

So, all in all, I'm not completely convinced that it's okay for reporters to base their stories on anonymous sources. The key word here is "base". It's one thing to cite an anonymous source while offering more substantive evidence, but entirely other to depend on the source for the story, which seems to be the cae here, no?

[SKMDC]

But what if I broke the law, revealing grand jury testimony, because I felt the whole thing was going to get swept under the rug.
No one knew of the depth of involvement of the players involved, testifying in this case. And it would also probably be just a memory if the the story hadn't broke. By breaking the story a lot of positive has come out of it. Stricter substance detection in sports, more kids are aware of the illegalities and the dangers of steroids, etc.
Where would we stand if the it hadn't been reported. The Balco creep would be doing time and the rest of the world would be oblivious to baseball's involvement.

[Banana]

Then that'd have applied in the second scenario I described; courts are more likely to dismiss or substantively reduce punishment because the actions was for benefits of everyone. Therefore the sources shouldn't be afraid to speak up.

See, if they can get away with "breaking the letters of law" because they were much more faithful to the spirit of the law, it would be a good thing for whistleblowers all over. It'd be a real protection from retilation, which right now AFAICT, there is none, if any. This would in turn, promote much more honest breed of journalism, no?

It's the criminals who should be afraid, not the whistleblowers even if both has broken the law.

[SKMDC]

Reporters don't base their stories on one source, they base them on more than one source and many confirmations. In this case I believe they were shown transcripts and documents from grand jury testimony, and my guess is that could have been done anonymously with confirmation as to the legitimacy, which the government has never questioned.

So you are saying the court should be lenient to these two guys? They just gave them 18 months. I guess I don't understand your point.

[Banana]

First, let's make sure *I* understand the issue here.

The reporters were sentenced 18 months because they won't tell who their sources were for the story and that sources showed them documents from a previous grand jury surrounding the BALCO affair.

Did I get that right?

If so, I'm saying that courts should lenient with the sources if they broke the law in revealing documents from the old grand jury, so the source shouldn't have anything to worry about, and in turn so does the reporters. Reporters' stonewalling leaves open the suspicion that they could have fabricated or spun the story or even worse. If you don't think that could have happened, ask Stephen Glass.

I hope that makes sense now...

[SKMDC]

I understand your sympathies for the whistle blower, so you feel that they should either not be prosecuted or dealt with in a less severe way then the reporters who wrote the story?
Stephen Glass isn't a fair comparison because he A) turned out not to be a Journalist, just a fabricator and B) was never prosecuted for anything, he just lost his job and got a movie deal. He's a scumbag.

Williams & Fainaru-Wada are honest reporters and the government is trying to squeeze them because they can't police their own Justice Department.

Besides all that, that's not my question. My question is, "shouldn't the President who actually used the words Natonal Heroes to describe Williams & Fainaru-Wada cowboy up and pardon them?"
Be a man of his words as it were.

What are his political liabilities if he does this? Are his people telling him he should do it? You know he wants to. Or are they telling him the ramifications would be bad if he did it.?

[Banana]

Actually, I'm saying that reporters should be able to disclose their sources without worrying that the sources getting screwed. If that was true, then the whole case would be irrelevent.

I mentioned Mr. Glass because right now, reporters can say they have this on an "anonymous source", which makes it difficult for anyone to check up on. Not too different from Mr. Glass's shoddy excuse for journalism, is it?

The whole thing about "anonymous sources" is really irrelevent to me. Reporters should and ought be producing stories that can be easily verified, and the whistleblowers should be protected from any retialtation. Now then, where's the need for anonymous sources? None. That's what things should be.

But right now, we're in a middle of a case which could be either entirely frivilous or totally overlooking even more heinous crime (e.g. journalistic fraud) because some brilliant geniusnik thought it'd be OK to use anonymous sources so they dont' have to go through the hassle of properly securing protection for the sources and reporters.

[SKMDC]

The government wouldn't be prosecuting them if their story weren't accurate. The legitimacy of their reporting has never been in question.
And as I said (albeit edited in to my post, maybe you missed it) it isn't really the point of my thread.

[Argento]

Originally Posted by Banana The whole thing about "anonymous sources" is really irrelevent to me. Reporters should and ought be producing stories that can be easily verified, and the whistleblowers should be protected from any retialtation. Now then, where's the need for anonymous sources? None. That's what things should be.

Are you kidding? They should only be stories that are "easily verified?" What about Watergate? The Pentagon Papers? The muckracking back in the early 1900's? Journalisim *used* to be the one true thing that kept politicians honest. If they just did "easily," verified stories they'd be worthless. This country was founded on freedom of the press and protection from persecution like this.

And the bit about making up sources? You know its not just the reporters who know their sources right? Most of the time their editors know who their sources are so the editors can feel comfortable and confident in the story they're going to print.

This is ridiculous. These reporters are just publishing the truth (remember the validity of these reports are not in question) and they're going to jail why shit holes like Barry Bond, Jason Giambi, tons of football players and other athletes get to make millions of dollars? Bullshit.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by SKMDC The government wouldn't be prosecuting them if their story weren't accurate. The legitimacy of their reporting has never been in question. And as I said (albeit edited in to my post, maybe you missed it) it isn't really the point of my thread.

Since you asked to keep with your question, I'll try and answer it;

I do not think Bush should give pardon to the reporters. At best, this is only a band-aid, while ignoring the bigger problems of whether reporters have privileges of citing anonymous sources. Rather, I'd hope that he'd encourage reporters to testify, on the condition that total immunity would be granted to the sources. Make it an example of how someone needs to come up with a working framework of allowing reporters to collect information without jeopardizing himself and the sources while maintaining verifiability of the story.

Originally Posted by Argento Are you kidding? They should only be stories that are "easily verified?" What about Watergate? The Pentagon Papers? The muckracking back in the early 1900's? Journalisim *used* to be the one true thing that kept politicians honest. If they just did "easily," verified stories they'd be worthless. This country was founded on freedom of the press and protection from persecution like this.

Did I say anything against freedom of print?

And the bit about making up sources? You know its not just the reporters who know their sources right? Most of the time their editors know who their sources are so the editors can feel comfortable and confident in the story they're going to print.

I take it you didn't read my link to Mr. Stephen Glass's "accomplishments."

This is ridiculous. These reporters are just publishing the truth (remember the validity of these reports are not in question) and they're going to jail why shit holes like Barry Bond, Jason Giambi, tons of football players and other athletes get to make millions of dollars? Bullshit.

I'm in agreement here. The case is really an non-issue. They've got it all backwards.

It's the question of whether:
1) reporters are allowed to cite anonymous sources. (I think not.)
2) reporters should be jeopardized if they gather news from less than savory source. (I think not.)
3) sources should be jeopardized if their names is gave away by the reporter under oath. (I think not if the sources did in his/her best faith. If indeterminate, a reduced charge.)

[SKMDC]

Think of the chilling effect this would have if you got your wish Banana, no one would talk to the press if anonymity couldn't be assured. It would essentially provide a governmental clampdown on the press. What would be next? No more freedom of information act? A secret government acting with no responsibilities to the citizens of America.
Vice-President Cheney drools at the opportunity.

[Banana]

But anonymity isn't the answer, and has been abused. I would think it far better to grant sources immunity than to protect reporters' privileges to cite anonymous sources.

I'm saying that everyone is entitled to know the whole truth, and that includes the sources and I'm okay with giving the sources protection for the greater benefit of the people.

[SKMDC]

Originally Posted by Banana But anonymity isn't the answer, and has been abused. I would think it far better to grant sources immunity than to protect reporters' privileges to cite anonymous sources. I'm saying that everyone is entitled to know the whole truth, and that includes the sources and I'm okay with giving the sources protection for the greater benefit of the people.

Who is going to grant immunity? Why would the government grant someone immunity if they were going to spill the beans on secret illegal bombings in a foreign land? You want to blindly trust our government but not the press. Smart.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you weren't alive in the 70's.

[Banana]

Except that government is of, for, and by the people (or at least it ought be... ). Properly administered, immunity can be even granted to sources even if it's against the government. After all, our Bill of Rights happen to be enforced by government, and there has been successful cases against government disputing government's power wrt Bill of Rights. This would be no different.

I don't trust the government and I don't trust the press. Hence my insistence on complete transparency.

No, I wasn't alive in 70s. Mind giving me a quick tour? I'd like to learn.

[SKMDC]

nah,
you seem to have everything under control.

[BarracksSi]

Originally Posted by Banana I don't trust the government and I don't trust the press. Hence my insistence on complete transparency.

If you can't trust the government, then you can't trust them to protect those sources that you want in order to keep the press honest.

Journalists are killed elsewhere because they tell the truths that corrupt people don't want to be known.

I know when reporters are editorializing and when they're stating facts. They must be able to get all the facts that they need and recite them to the public. If the source is scared for his or her life, then anonymity should be guaranteed.

Seriously -- who here has information about their bosses or any level of government that would certainly get yourself fired, harassed, jailed, or worse? Until you've been stuck in that terrible position, you can't truly know the fear that those people live under.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by SKMDC nah, you seem to have everything under control.

I would have liked to hear what you would have had to say. After all, I *could* be wrong, and would gladly consider new perspectives over digging deeper into a hole.

Originally Posted by BarracksSi Journalists are killed elsewhere because they tell the truths that corrupt people don't want to be known. I know when reporters are editorializing and when they're stating facts. They must be able to get all the facts that they need and recite them to the public. If the source is scared for his or her life, then anonymity should be guaranteed.

and what do you say about Plame Affair? If you were to believe the rumors, Bush or Cheney should be indicted for leaking or authorizing the leak which was illegal given that she was an CIA operative. In the initial Novak's article, he cited two anonymous sources, saying they were "senior administrative officials" in White House. After investigation, it was determined that Richard Armitage was the primary source for this leak. However, there are still unanswered questions (e.g. why would Novak, after all years of reporting on White House and knowing the laws surrounding disclosing a CIA source would "accidentally" disclose that for first time in his career?), and I say that is a example where government can use anonymity to their advantage, which is just as bad as the clampdown on press that SKMDC described.

Originally Posted by BarracksSi If you can't trust the government, then you can't trust them to protect those sources that you want in order to keep the press honest.

Just because you can't trust the government doesn't mean they can't do the job at all. Think of what would happen if an government agency tried to suppress someone's First Amendment. For sake of argument, let's make that agency Department of Justice. If it was widely reported on and closely watched, Department of Justice is basically screwed and can't do anything further stupid. Then there can be a fair trial because there's a public watching. After all, First Amendment didn't quite have as broad implications as it does today until War protests back in 'Nam wars pushed the court to action among other things.

That's ultimately who will protect their rights. It was never government's job to begin with. It's the people's duty to protect their fellow citizens' rights, and government is simply a mean to that end. Same would apply to granting the immunity.

[Argento]

Karl Vick he's my uncle and writes for the washington post. He's been in baghdad the past 3 years, do you know what happens if he doesn't use annynomous sources?

My dad was an investigative reporter, he did a report in Kenya on the death of father Kaiser, do you know what happens if he doesn't keep those sources annynomous?

The answer to both is they DIE. That's right, they die. I've got about 20 other reporters that would be unable to do their job if they couldn't keep their sources annyonomous, and even if your "immunity," for the leakers was enacted it still wouldn't work. The reason why is they might be "immune," from being fired, but do you know how great human spite is?

If you leak something to the papers that stops your company from doing something illegal and they know for a fact it is you, do you think you'll ever be able to do your job the same way again? They will fuck you at every turn and do the worst possible things to you up to but not including, firing you.

Also how many cases of reporters making up their sources can you come up with in the past 5 years? 5? 10? Out of how many articles are written a day that use annynomous sources 5,000, 10,000? You're pointing out something that rarely happens but because its so public everybody can dwell on it. Just like the taxpayer's evacuation of American's in Lebanon, its such a non-issue but because politicians can jump on it and say that all they're doing is demanding honesty and accountablity, people will get such a flaming hard on for that, so all they can try to do is find and asshole to plug instead of thinking rationaly about it.