The W
Views: 97859800
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
31.7.14 2058
The W - Baseball - Game of Shadows authors
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 3.50
Pages: 1
(613 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (3 total)
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.41
No, I don't wanna try to spell that one dudes last name.

Anyway, of course we've all heard the judge has ordered them to name their source, and it was all the radio shows wanted to talk about today. I'm just not sure where I stand on this.

First, there are cases where you can not be made to testify against someone, as in husband/wife, a confessional, lawyer/client. I can see where maybe that should apply in journalism, as we want our news people to be able to let us in one the info given to them that is important to us.

I also love that we have the info we do, and that this judge is basically saying yes you did give the real info at least to some degree. Helps validate that info in the book.

I don't really care that they made money off it, because I don't believe that it was their only motivation for it.

However, if you allow journalists to do this without having to name sources, it would allow people to freely give info they shouldn't be giving(illegal), knowing the journalist will be able to keep them hidden. That's not always gonna be a good thing.

Peronally I think they should name their source in this. I can't stand the argument that they can't name their source because they would be out of a job. Most sources aren't giving you illegal infomation. They're giving you inside tips or info that they maybe should not, but it's not breaking any laws. I can see where no one would give them secret grand jury testimony again, but I don't see how that's a bad thing for them or the grand jury system.

For that reason, as well as them knowingly writing info that was illegal for them to have, I say if they don't talk, they should go to jail and I won't feel sorry for them.
Promote this thread!
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    No, I don't wanna try to spell that one dudes last name.

    Anyway, of course we've all heard the judge has ordered them to name their source, and it was all the radio shows wanted to talk about today. I'm just not sure where I stand on this.

    First, there are cases where you can not be made to testify against someone, as in husband/wife, a confessional, lawyer/client. I can see where maybe that should apply in journalism, as we want our news people to be able to let us in one the info given to them that is important to us.

    I also love that we have the info we do, and that this judge is basically saying yes you did give the real info at least to some degree. Helps validate that info in the book.

    I don't really care that they made money off it, because I don't believe that it was their only motivation for it.

    However, if you allow journalists to do this without having to name sources, it would allow people to freely give info they shouldn't be giving(illegal), knowing the journalist will be able to keep them hidden. That's not always gonna be a good thing.

    Peronally I think they should name their source in this. I can't stand the argument that they can't name their source because they would be out of a job. Most sources aren't giving you illegal infomation. They're giving you inside tips or info that they maybe should not, but it's not breaking any laws. I can see where no one would give them secret grand jury testimony again, but I don't see how that's a bad thing for them or the grand jury system.

    For that reason, as well as them knowingly writing info that was illegal for them to have, I say if they don't talk, they should go to jail and I won't feel sorry for them.


Can you give me an example of a journalist using an anonymous source to present information you think they shouldn't have been reporting?

Also, I don't think the argument that allowing anonymous sources gives reporters the means to go crazy reporting irresponsibly holds water - it all comes down to credibility. Nobody was too worried in 2004 when Matt Drudge, without named sources, claimed John Kerry had a love child in Southeast Asia. Why? Because Matt Drudge is a no-good hack, and everybody knows it. Kerry of course still went on to win the Democratic nomination and almost become president.

In this case, I think the reporters might have used bad judgment. I think the story is a worthwhile one, but is there anyone who, knowing everything else they know but *not* knowing about Bonds' grand jury testimony, would think differently one way or another about the use of steroids in baseball? I don't think so.

Now the reporters are not only facing legal punishment for "wasting" anonymous sources on a story where they weren't necessary, but they also have given the courts a chance to set yet another dangerous precedent allowing the government to prosecute reporters. I think this is a *very* slipperly slope, and one thing will definitely lead to another before the term "free press" is a joke in this country, if the U.S. courts don't do something very soon to reverse the trend.



"I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it."

--George Carlin
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.41
Well if it's illegal for them to have it, they probably shouldnt be reporting it. You may have a problem with the law, and that's understandable and a different debate. But they knew it was illegal and they put it in the public, so they have to face the consequences.

I'm not saying reporters will be irresponsible with their reporting, I'm saying people involved in grand jury testimony could be so, as they wouldn't have to worry about being caught. How is that not a bad thing? Should they not be expected to uphold this confidential session, or held accountable if they don't?

Personally, yes what they put in the book made me feel differently. It wasn't just Bond's personal testimony, it was the testimony of others in that grand jury that really opened my eyes to what was going on. Before that book I really didn't care that much about it all because I didn't realize all the lengths that they went to in getting, using and hiding what they were doing and it had a huge impact on my feelings overall. Most everyone else I know of that read the book feels the same way.

I understand the free press arguement and I don't want everything be kept secret, but at the same time how can someone weight that more than the rights of a grand jury to have confidentiality?

In this particular issue, no real major harm was done other than to reputations. However if you allow them to not talk, then you make it ok for a more important issue to pop up. If this was a national security issue, would it be ok that a reporter knew where it came from but refused to talk? If we had someone working high up that committed a crime and we knew a person knew about it, but couldn't get them to talk and just said ok, rather than holding them accountable? I don't like that either.

I guess it's just a hard line to judge, but it's clear they helped someone break the law. How can we allow them to then be silent and protect a felon? Wouldn't that set a dangerous precedent as well?
Thread rated: 3.50
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Gibbons, Lilly go at it in Toronto
Next thread: Denis Leary on Mel Gibson: Youkiliscious!
Previous thread: Pedro Martinez joining game's all-time greats
(613 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Remember, his mother was "kidnapped" last year, so Ugie might not be associating with the best people in the world. Always knew he was an arsonist though from his Red Sox days. And of course, he used the cutter to set up the gas.
- redsoxnation, Do NOT F*(K with Ugeth Urbina (2005)
The W - Baseball - Game of Shadows authorsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.075 seconds.