Saturday, October 07, 2006
Reporters investigative journalism should be rewarded; sources should not.
The two reporters that exposed several athletes who allegedly used steroids, most notably Barry Bonds, were sentenced to 18 months in jail on Sept. 22, 2006.
While Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams of the San Francisco Chronicle have appealed the sentencing, the case has angered several members of the media who fear that the sentencing may affect future investigative reporters’ zeal to chase after the truth.
In an ESPN article titled “Outcome for Chronicle reporters means we all lose,” writer Wright Thompson criticized the judge’s sentencing and subsequently the law saying the reporters articles and book, “…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.” Thompson goes on to say, “…those are the only relevant facts to me. They provided a public service, worked long hours, endured criticism and dead ends, pursuing the truth.”
However, those are not the only relevant facts. In a pat-on-the-back-bid to commend the reporters, the writer and other media members forget that the book and most of the reporters’ case was built on the grand jury testimony the athletes gave in confidentiality. To get most of the athletes to testify in the case against Victor Conte and others, each athlete was promised confidentiality in their testimonies (most of them were invited against their will). Those agreements were breached when an inside source leaked their statements to these writers, which is against the law. Why should the government be allowed to subpoena people to testify under the promise of confidentiality if the promise means nothing?
It has become a growing and disturbing trend that information offered in secrecy is being leaked out to sources in order for some people to feel like they played a part in solving a case or righting justice. In a somewhat related case, which was to be the subject of my original article, Marion Jones’ positive “A” sample for the banned substance EPO was leaked to the media; even though no information was to be released until the “B” sample was tested. Perhaps, Jones got away with a discrepancy, or perhaps she was just an innocent victim whose name was further tainted by a flawed test. Either way, her initial positive test was leaked so she would be found guilty in the court of public opinion regardless of the eventual outcome of her second test.
As an aspiring sports journalist, I am torn between rooting for the reporters who brought such an important issue into the limelight and ensuring that a confidentiality agreement is enforced whenever people are lured into testifying.
In a related article on ESPN titled “A real game of shadows,” writer Jim Caple said if a reporter cannot guarantee confidentiality, then sources would not talk. He said, “That means stories about…elected officials bending the law to serve themselves instead of you…won’t get written.” The difference is, like the Watergate scandal, these stories can still be discovered without using a source from grand jury testimonies. Grand jury testimonies should be kept confidential as initially agreed. Therefore, if any participant who agrees to those terms decides to break the law, and another aids and protects their identity, they should be held responsible and punished.
While Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams of the San Francisco Chronicle have appealed the sentencing, the case has angered several members of the media who fear that the sentencing may affect future investigative reporters’ zeal to chase after the truth.
In an ESPN article titled “Outcome for Chronicle reporters means we all lose,” writer Wright Thompson criticized the judge’s sentencing and subsequently the law saying the reporters articles and book, “…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.” Thompson goes on to say, “…those are the only relevant facts to me. They provided a public service, worked long hours, endured criticism and dead ends, pursuing the truth.”
However, those are not the only relevant facts. In a pat-on-the-back-bid to commend the reporters, the writer and other media members forget that the book and most of the reporters’ case was built on the grand jury testimony the athletes gave in confidentiality. To get most of the athletes to testify in the case against Victor Conte and others, each athlete was promised confidentiality in their testimonies (most of them were invited against their will). Those agreements were breached when an inside source leaked their statements to these writers, which is against the law. Why should the government be allowed to subpoena people to testify under the promise of confidentiality if the promise means nothing?
It has become a growing and disturbing trend that information offered in secrecy is being leaked out to sources in order for some people to feel like they played a part in solving a case or righting justice. In a somewhat related case, which was to be the subject of my original article, Marion Jones’ positive “A” sample for the banned substance EPO was leaked to the media; even though no information was to be released until the “B” sample was tested. Perhaps, Jones got away with a discrepancy, or perhaps she was just an innocent victim whose name was further tainted by a flawed test. Either way, her initial positive test was leaked so she would be found guilty in the court of public opinion regardless of the eventual outcome of her second test.
As an aspiring sports journalist, I am torn between rooting for the reporters who brought such an important issue into the limelight and ensuring that a confidentiality agreement is enforced whenever people are lured into testifying.
In a related article on ESPN titled “A real game of shadows,” writer Jim Caple said if a reporter cannot guarantee confidentiality, then sources would not talk. He said, “That means stories about…elected officials bending the law to serve themselves instead of you…won’t get written.” The difference is, like the Watergate scandal, these stories can still be discovered without using a source from grand jury testimonies. Grand jury testimonies should be kept confidential as initially agreed. Therefore, if any participant who agrees to those terms decides to break the law, and another aids and protects their identity, they should be held responsible and punished.
