Freedom of the Sporting Press
It's entirely possible that Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams - the reporters famous for breaking the BALCO steroid scandal and writing Game of Shadows, the tell-all exposé about Barry Bonds - will soon be writing their articles from lockdown. They were recently sentenced to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal their sources in the case.
For those of you unfamiliar with the details of the case, the primary source for all of Fainaru-Wada and Williams' scribblings was leaked grand jury testimony, which (according to my understanding of the rules) is supposed to be sealed. In this case, all indications have been that the witnesses (Jason Giambi and Bonds among them) were given a guarantee that their testimony would be kept secret.
The reporters have been stalwart in their refusal to disclose their source, as has the court in its insistence that said disclosure is a matter of importance. There is an appeal in process, but - as I said - it is quite possible that Fainaru-Wada and Williams will do time. Is this right?
In a word, yes. In three words, I think so. I heartily embrace the freedom of the press, and I usually agree that protecting one's sources is the appropriate action. In this case, though, oughtn't be a factor that someone violated a very important code in our justice system to break a story about a game?
Sure, Bonds and Giambi - and sooooo many others - are guilty of cheating and misleading sports fans all over the world. But in the grand scheme of things, beyond sports, what harm have they really done? On the other side of the coin is someone whose law-breaking has much more far-reaching implications.
If leaking grand jury testimony is allowed to go unpunished this time, a dangerous door is opened. Suppose a similar leak in a mafia case led to the murder of a witness. I'm certain a public outcry would demand the identity of the source.
The case of Watergate also jumps to mind, though, and I do worry about that - specifically, it would be a lot harder to expose a government scandal if sources were not secure in the secrecy of their identity.
At the end of the day, though, I think that sort of scenario is the exception to the rule, and in fact it is much more dangerous to open a door to the insecurity of grand jury information than to questionable protection of journalists' sources. After all, the writers can always choose to spend the time in jail rather than expose their source, and hopefully a scandal at the level of Watergate would inspire such surreptitiousness.
For those of you unfamiliar with the details of the case, the primary source for all of Fainaru-Wada and Williams' scribblings was leaked grand jury testimony, which (according to my understanding of the rules) is supposed to be sealed. In this case, all indications have been that the witnesses (Jason Giambi and Bonds among them) were given a guarantee that their testimony would be kept secret.
The reporters have been stalwart in their refusal to disclose their source, as has the court in its insistence that said disclosure is a matter of importance. There is an appeal in process, but - as I said - it is quite possible that Fainaru-Wada and Williams will do time. Is this right?
In a word, yes. In three words, I think so. I heartily embrace the freedom of the press, and I usually agree that protecting one's sources is the appropriate action. In this case, though, oughtn't be a factor that someone violated a very important code in our justice system to break a story about a game?
Sure, Bonds and Giambi - and sooooo many others - are guilty of cheating and misleading sports fans all over the world. But in the grand scheme of things, beyond sports, what harm have they really done? On the other side of the coin is someone whose law-breaking has much more far-reaching implications.
If leaking grand jury testimony is allowed to go unpunished this time, a dangerous door is opened. Suppose a similar leak in a mafia case led to the murder of a witness. I'm certain a public outcry would demand the identity of the source.
The case of Watergate also jumps to mind, though, and I do worry about that - specifically, it would be a lot harder to expose a government scandal if sources were not secure in the secrecy of their identity.
At the end of the day, though, I think that sort of scenario is the exception to the rule, and in fact it is much more dangerous to open a door to the insecurity of grand jury information than to questionable protection of journalists' sources. After all, the writers can always choose to spend the time in jail rather than expose their source, and hopefully a scandal at the level of Watergate would inspire such surreptitiousness.
posted by Kolsky @ 1:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home