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

[RedBean]

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 <u>broke federal law</u>, in order to supply material to journalists who <u>profited from that illegal activity</u> all over <u>some gossip about a guy who hits a lot of homeruns</u>.

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 <u>federal crime</u> before it is concerned with revealing sources that committed a felony in order to make the journalists rich.

[J.R.]

[ 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]

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.

<u>Journalistic Code of Ethics:</u>

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.

[Boris]

How in the hell do I spell speech speach?

[By-Tor]

IMO, Sports "Reporters" do far too much judging and opinionating to be considered reporters.

They are closer to gossip columnists and should not be protected under the same protections as journalists.

[Sluss]

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 ]

[ColdCaller]

Always protect your sources.

[Sluss]

Red Bean,

My final shot on this. I'm not saying all reporters are saints and there are alot of sportswriters who have no idea what they are talking about. But, your overpowering hatered towards the media is a bit scary.

Although this belongs a little more in the Political forum, understand that when a group in power spends time tearing down the media it has a tendency to be because they have something to hide. The more defensive they become and the more they spout off how there is a conspiracy, whether it be a "vast right wing conspiracy" or the "liberal media conspiracy" it has to do with them trying to hide the truth.

It would be a good idea to take a step back understand where this bias comes from and try to treat each individual circumstance as different. When you hear something not once, not twice, not three times, but hundreds of time it rings pretty true. When there are only small groups of spouting off the oposing viewpoint, it usually has something to do with and agenda. Not everything is a conspiracy, not everything is about race, not everything is about religion. There is no black and white. You have to take your knowlege from as many sources as you can and make decision based on who seems to have the smallest axe to grind.

Because unfortunatly in these times of who needs to know first and "exclusives" there is alot of shotty reporting. There are also alot of harsh reactions to stories that people just don't like because it is about someone who they thought was better. I think it is important to seperate the two and find out why your upset.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
When you hear something not once, not twice, not three times, but hundreds of time it rings pretty true.


[/ QUOTE ]

So basically, if a lie is repeated enough, it becomes true?

Sweet.

[ QUOTE ]

I think it is important to seperate the two and find out why your upset.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what bugs me. It's a witchhunt against one guy nearing a record who has never failed a drug test, under the guise of ridding baseball of steroids. But it has very little do with the issue of steroids in baeball.

As I said in another thread, 12 MLB players tested positive for steroids last season and were suspended. Without looking it up how many can you name? These guys barely merit a mention.

Pick up a newspaper and you'd think Barry Bonds is the only player who ever juiced, despite the fact he has never failed a test, and the average casual fan couldn't name half of the guys who have <u>actually tested positive</u> and been suspended.

In fact, one MLB player tested positive in the last TWO WEEKS and was suspended, and barely merits a mention in the press, by the same guys who supposedly "care" about steroids in baseball, but in that same time period, Bonds has been front page news virtually every single day.

[Boris]

Yea, and my point is that the source is not some noble whistleblower. He is a crook who should not be working in a place where he can so easily betray the public's trust.