The Shadowy Truth
Listed in: BaseballAs someone who studied journalism in college with the intent of pursuing a career as a sports journalist, the news that Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams will be facing 18 months of jail time for failing to reveal their sources in the BALCO case came as yet another sign that our society no longer places much value on the work that journalists do.
Sure, they were reporting on sports, and not politics, but they still helped expose how some of our most successful athletes were circumeventing the policies put in place to keep the competition fair, not to mention breaking the law. It might not be Watergate, but it was still a public service.
Now, they're going to jail, mostly because they did their job better than the federal investigators who were, and are, trying to build a criminal case against some of the participants in the BALCO scandal. Winning that case has become a goal of utmost importance for the U.S. attorney's office, mostly because it's become so high profile. Now, because someone leaked grand jury testimony to Fainaru-Wada and Williams, they're going to spend up to 18 months in jail for doing their job.
Confidential sources are often a necessity for journalists, particularly when it comes to investigative stories. Without the promise of anonymity, few people in a position to know anything will talk with journalists, since making their names public would likely cause them to lose their jobs and/or go to jail. As the journalist, you then have an obligation to protect the identity of that source, even if it means facing jail time. Certain states have shield laws to protect journalists in those cases, but not all of them, and not the federal government, though there is such a law in front of Congress.
The general public typically has a low opinion of journalists, at least in this day and age. We've been inundated with claims that the media is filled with bias in whatever political direction you can imagine. Journalists are seen as weak, nothing more than shills for one party or the other. In sports, we've mostly outgrown the need for journalists, since anyone with a computer and ten minutes can write up their take on just about anything in the world of sports. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does gloss over something important.
There are times (not many, but they do occur) when journalists change the world. Woodward and Bernstein breaking the Watergate case. Upton Sinclair changing meatpacking laws. The rest of the muckrakers exposing corruption in politics and business. Williams and Fainaru-Wada are following in those footsteps, and their dogged pursuit of the truth in the BALCO case has changed the way that many people, myself included, view sports. No longer are we ignorant to the lengths players will go to get an upper hand, even if doing so risks their health and breaks the rules.
Journalists should not be above the law, as the judge said when sentancing the writers. But they should be provided greater protection under the law when it comes to confidential sources. Like it or not, the public still depends on journalists to provide a valuable public service, pursuing the stories that would otherwise get swept under the rug by the government or other organizations that want to keep the public dumb and happy. Sure, it's easy to get down on journalists when most of them are pompous, ineffective, or just plain bad writers. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, even if in this case the bath water could fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
Comments
I'm torn on the issue. On one hand confidential sources are necessary. On the other hand, no law gives carte blanche and this story doesn't benefit the public in anyway. (I'm sorry, we all love sports and while all of this is interesting for guys like us, it isn't any more useful than tabloid info on Tom Cruise)
The person who leaked Grand Jury testimony broke the law. If I'm not mistaken, that could mess up any trial the feds wanted to pursue. (I think it would be grounds for a mistrial)
And the question is for what? So you me and everyone in the US can know what Barry Bonds injected into himself or that Jason Giambi did steroids? Makes for great reads and entertaining topics to write about. But that just isn't important enough to warrant lawbreaking.
Again this isn't Watergate. And this case isn't going to set precedent. It was already done with the whole Judith Miller case, which actually dealt with an important issue. That case essentially showed the government can and will punish reporters that it chooses to.
Nothing is absolute. The first amendment (which this is not a case of) doesn't allow you to scream "Fire" in a crowded theatre. There are limits to everything.
Now which do you think has more of a detrimental effect on America, players doing steroids or leaks in the federal justice system which can wreck cases?
Posted by: Ben V | September 22, 2006 2:39 PM
It seems to me that the two reporters refused to testify to the grand jury because it would have been hypocritical--they couldn't keep up with the pretense that grand jury testimony is confidential since they had contributed to violating that trust in the instance in question to begin with. In their situation, was it right to push for the story at the expense of the grand jury system? If grand jury testimony is that easy to procure, then it's severely cheapened.
Posted by: David Arnott | September 23, 2006 6:18 PM