1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Balco leak uncovered

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by pressboxer, Dec 21, 2006.

  1. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    So you make a general statement that is flat out wrong. I correct it, and instead of acknowleding you were wrong, you try to obscure it with:

    "Well, in the BALCO case a defense attorney was the leak."

    Well, duh. If the Yahoo! story is correct, I didn't need you to tell me that. I found that out on page one of this thread. The story alleges that the defense attorneys were the source of a leak (still not verified or proven yet, by the way). It's what started the thread in the first place, Sherlock.

    So with that out of the way, I'll reiterate the original point before your weak attempt to obscure how wrong you were: you were spouting erroneous bullshit. And I called you on it.
  2. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    What are you babbling about now?

    Again, Ragu seems slow to comprehend, so we'll have to repost the argument for a fourth time:

    Either the information was public when the defense teams received it, as Bo and Luke's attorneys claim, or it wasn't.
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I'm done. I won't argue with a retard. I have no fucking clue what Bo and Luke are. And you continually refuse to respond like an intelligent human--you obviously lack the ability. So here's an argument you can understand: Dyegump drank Kool-Aid with Bo and Luke. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you, tard. I'm also sure you think that takes razor-sharp wit, retard that you are. So laugh by yourself like an imbecile.

    And in case you haven't figured it out--because you are dense and refuse to actually read--no matter how many times you try to obscure the original discussion in which you made an ass out of yourself and were spanked by a dozen people--the discussion about whether we should have shield laws or not--I'm not going to indulge your pointless strawmen arguments, which have noting to do with the topic.

    I have no interest in arguing the legal strategy Williams and Fainaru-Wada are taking. It isn't germane to the discussion about shield laws. If there was a shield law, they wouldn't have to be tied up with bullshit legal maneuvering. That's about the only reason what their defense team is doing matters.

    So back to the point at hand--for anyone who isn't a retard and wants to have the discussion--shield laws make sense because they are good for a democracy that views a free and open press as the fourth estate--an added check and balance that informs people and makes sure that the public can make good decisions. Our country would be made stronger by shield laws that put an end to things like this, in which two journalists who have shown extraordinary integrity don't have to face a choice between betraying a promise to a source who insisted on remaining confidential in exchage for important info, or getting tossed in jail by a judge who is twisting their arms. Shield laws insure a freer flow of information, and in very important cases, give whistle blowers a relatively safe way to expose government malfeasance. That is never a bad thing.
  4. zaphod

    zaphod New Member

    This, indeed, is the heart of the argument. You've finally arrived. Congratulations. Now, what you need to do is understand that whether information is, or is not, public, has nothing to do with the application of shield laws or whether shield laws are, in general, worthy of support.

    Shield laws are invoked to thwart the government from employing the press to learn the identity of a source, or of some other information in the possession of a journalist. Nothing more. The lawyers can argue all they want about the point in a process when information became public, and at no time during that argument will a shield law come into play. I doesn't even matter who wins that argument among the lawyers. The journalists' lawyers might be making the argument that the testimony became public even before it came into the hands of the journalists. So what? If they win that argument, they avoid having to invoke California's shield law as a last line of defense. It only makes sense that the journalists would be trying to keep the issue out of their red zone. If they lose the argument, they have the option of forcing the government to issue a subpoena, at which point they can raise the shield law, and force the government to prove to a judge that the information is both so vital to the government and available from not other method that it ought to be forcibly extracted from the journalists.
  5. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

    Bo and Luke Duke, renegades.
  6. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    I have nothing to say here other than I thought it vital to have four straight posts from someone besides fudgepack, who will then post four-straight times of his own...
  7. Five straight.
  8. Don't you mean five consecutive? ;)
  9. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    Then why are the yeehawers rebelyelling "SHIEEEEEEEEELDLAW" yet again?

    Now we're back to "We need a shield, except when we don't, but we do."

    Priceless. Again, there really is only one true Game of Shadows, and that's the one the journalism industry seems doomed to wander through.
  10. awriter

    awriter Active Member

    "Now we're back to "We need a shield, except when we don't, but we do."

    This from the guy who said the info in the book should have been in the paper (it basically was) and the reporters deserve to go to jail if they don't turn over their sources, even though doing so probably means they -- or any of us -- will never be able to do any investigative work again.
  11. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    I believe I said it should have been broken in the paper.

    And you claim it was investigative work, but even Bo and Luke's lawyers say it was public information. Which is it? Is it public, or is it some daring investigative piece? I don't think it can be both.

    Of course, that's the same argument I've posted a dozen times now. Guess the Game of Shadows has still engulfed the journalism world.
  12. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    And fudgepack is the only one who doesn't find it tiresome...
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page