"Game o Shadows" authors refuse to reveal sources, may face jail time.

RedBean · #1 05-10-2006, 02:25 PM

The authors of "Game of Shadows" refuse to reveal to a federal grand jury their confidential sources used in putting together the material for their book, and could face possible fines and jail time as a result of failing to cooperate with investigations.

One has to wonder if they are so confident in what they have written as being true, why they are now refusing to reveal their sources to the federal grand jury that is investigating the matter.

Seems to me like their speculation was ONLY good enough for the "court of public opinion", but they themselves fear its scrutiny in the Court of Law.

They were overzealous in their accusations against Bonds outside of the courtroom, but given the chance to testify under oath to a grand jury investigating, they all of a sudden clam up and don't want to talk. One has to wonder why, and it makes you question their previous credibility.

Interesting indeed, after they are the ones that leveled all the charges at Bonds, that they themselves may be the ones looking at the inside of a jail cell while Bonds continues circling the basepaths.

Looks as if the accusers are actually the ones that have been breaking the law all along! Ironic, indeed!

[censored] · #2 05-10-2006, 02:28 PM

Because if their sources leaked grand jury testimony they would face jail time. you're coming across as pretty dense

RedBean · #3 05-10-2006, 05:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Because if their sources leaked grand jury testimony they would face jail time. you're coming across as pretty dense

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this right. You think it's noble of two guys to be accessory after the fact to the commission a federal crime...so long as they do it in the spirit of outing a guy who allegedly cheated at a game?

And you consider me "dense" because I value an American citizen's right to due process in our judicial system over a statistical recording of the amount of homeruns a man has hit in a sporting event?

Interesting perspective you have, to say the least.

Sluss · #4 05-10-2006, 05:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because if their sources leaked grand jury testimony they would face jail time. you're coming across as pretty dense

[/ QUOTE ] Let me get this right. You think it's noble of two guys to be accessory after the fact to the commission a federal crime...so long as they do it in the spirit of outing a guy who allegedly cheated at a game?

And you consider me "dense" because I value an American citizen's right to due process in our judicial system over a statistical recording of the amount of homeruns a man has hit in a sporting event?

Interesting perspective you have, to say the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, It's time to take a step back and take a breath. If these guys go to jail it is good. Not good because it will vindicate Bonds good because it is a very important asspect of our society.

One of the things that makes this country great is freedom of the press. There are very few countries in the world that have this freedom. Without the ablity of journalists to protect thier sources trouble is right around the corner.

At the crux of investigative journalism is the source. If these writers give up their source it hurts our whole society. Whistleblowers of major companies and government agencies have to know that their identity will be kept secret. It's these people that allow us to have a free and open society.

Obviously grand jury testimony that is suposed to be sealed should remain sealed. However, if it is leaked than that source must be protected at all costs. Let's take a step back from the Bonds situation and look at this from a different perspective. Let's say that there was a major cocaine ring that was being investigated by a San Francisco grand jury. The same source who leaked the Balco testimony would be the same leak for that testimony. Now there is a good shot that this testimony would never get out. However, let's say that the druglords bought off a D.A. and where given a lighter sentence or if the charges just disapeared. It would be the media that would have to bring this to light and that source would be key. If that source is exposed during the Bonds investigation then it would probably get the source fired.

There is a reason these guys will go to jail to protect their sources. It has nothing to do with them being liers or cheats and has everything to do with the journalistic code of ethics.

Boris · #5 05-10-2006, 05:55 PM

Sluss - There is a qualitative difference between a whistleblower and the guy who leaked Bonds' grand jury testimony, and thus subverted our hallowed institution of due process.

Sluss · #6 05-11-2006, 06:32 AM

Boris,

My point was that the same source is not just used by these reporters, but other reporters as well. So while this is pretty trivial (in the grand scheme of things) this source could be very critical to future reports that are much more important. If these reporters gave up that source, than he/she would not be available in more critical situations.

(quoting myself)
[ QUOTE ]
Let's take a step back from the Bonds situation and look at this from a different perspective. Let's say that there was a major cocaine ring that was being investigated by a San Francisco grand jury. The same source who leaked the Balco testimony would be the same leak for that testimony. Now there is a good shot that this testimony would never get out. However, let's say that the druglords bought off a D.A. and where given a lighter sentence or if the charges just disapeared. It would be the media that would have to bring this to light and that source would be key. If that source is exposed during the Bonds investigation then it would probably get the source fired.

[/ QUOTE ]

RedBean · #7 05-10-2006, 06:05 PM

I'm all for protecting whistleblowers, and folks who need protecting, so long as they are NOT THE ONES COMMITTING THE CRIME!

That isn't the case here....where we have folks who broke federal law, in order to supply material to journalists who profited from that illegal activity all over some gossip about a guy who hits a lot of homeruns.

The First Amendment isn't intended to protect those who break federal law for financial gain, at the expense of another man's fundamental right to due process.

They didn't break federal law here to whistleblow on some corrupt DA or cocaine ring as in your mistaken analogy. They broke federal law in order to make profits from a book containing rampant speculation at the expense of someone else.

And the "journalistic code of ethics" should be more concerned with not being an accessory to federal crime before it is concerned with revealing sources that committed a felony in order to make the journalists rich.

J.R. · #8 05-10-2006, 06:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is a reason these guys will go to jail to protect their sources. It has nothing to do with them being liers or cheats and has everything to do with the journalistic code of ethics.

[/ QUOTE ]

or that "these guys" = "profiteers"

RedBean · #9 05-10-2006, 06:39 PM

Sluss, my apologies, you were right. I just stumbled across this "journalistic code of ethics", and it seems like these authors aren't bad guys after all, they are just following the rules of their profession.

Journalistic Code of Ethics:

Rule #1. It's ok to profit directly from the commission of a crime, so long as the victim is someone who is viewed negatively by the angry mob of public opinion.

Rule #2. It's ok to report things completely inaccurately and even outright falsely, so long as it supports the predisposed views of the aforementioned angry mob of public opinion.

Rule #3. Under no circumstance should you cooperate with a federal investigation if it may interfere with your book sales.

Good thing we got that resolved, for a second there I thought maybe these guys were just two slimy hacks encouraging someone to break federal law for their own financial gain at the expense of a baseball player....but I stand corrected as they are obviously two noble stalwarts upholding the cherised code of ethics.

junglewarfare · #10 05-10-2006, 02:30 PM

I love how you criticize "the sports media" and anti bonds people for being biased and then turn around and present a litany of the most one sided posts possible.