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. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

    Seems like Troy Ellerman has problems in his other job, too ...

    http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=jo-ellerman122106&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

    And the PRCA is firing back:

    http://sports.espn.go.com/prorodeo/news/story?page=g_news_feller_balco_061222
     
  2. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    For those asking if any law was broken. From the rules governing any Federal Grand Jury:

    III. GRAND JURY, INDICTMENT, INFORMATION > Rule 6.

    Rule 6. The Grand Jury


    (6) Sealed Records.

    Records, orders, and subpoenas relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury.

    (7) Contempt.

    A knowing violation of Rule 6, or of guidelines jointly issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence pursuant to Rule 6, may be punished as a contempt of court.


    The entire document can be found here:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule6.htm
     
  3. Many states? Like 19? While 31 do have shield laws, and the problem here is there is no federal shield law and this is a federal case.

    Dye, just put your cards on the table: You just want to criticize, for some reason you like Bonds, perhaps because sportswriters hate him and you hate sportswriters, and this is just another chance for you to revel in being the voice of grumpiness. Well, bully for you.
     
  4. You're such an interesting debater. Sometimes you make salient points, sometimes you just name-call, and sometimes - like in this instance - you pronounce yourself the winner of the argument you wish wish we were having, instead of the one we actually are.
     
  5. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    Let's summarize the Kool-Aid drinkers' arguments so far:

    (1) The writers were investigating, and the government was not. Reality: The writers used testimony gathered in a government investigation.

    (2) The testimony was sealed, and we needed the writers to publish the leak in order to get the info. Reality: See No. 3.

    (3) The testimony was unsealed, so the writers weren't actually publishing a leak. The information was already out there and available. Reality: See No. 2.

    (4) No law covers this issue. Reality: Presented again and again and again. Readily available, yet ignored. Unless, of course, someone is arguing for a shield law.

    I'm sure I'm overlooking some other logical pearls among the oysters here, but this is a good start.

    Kool-Aid -- it's delicious.
     
  6. Returning his own serve again.
    Near as I can tell, the whole argument here centers on whether or not the reporters broke the law by publishing the information.
    If so, please cite the applicable statute.
    (And find another cliche, OK? "Drinking the Kool-Aid" is a couple of decades out of style. Actual reporters would know that.)
     
  7. awriter

    awriter Active Member

    No one's arguing whether a law was broken. The argument is whether the reporters broke a law.
     
  8. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    How can those two things be mutually exclusive?
     
  9. awriter

    awriter Active Member

    The person who leaked the testimony broke the law. The reporters did nothing illegal to obtain that info.
     
  10. Deskgrunt50

    Deskgrunt50 Well-Known Member

    Please tell me Dye's half-assed argument isn't because he's a fan of Bonds.

    Bottom line is these reporters did an outstanding job, a job their president urged them to do. A job without which the foundations of this country are in serious trouble. Hopefully the stories were run on pages with a very attractive design.

    But most important, Dye needs to find a better, more up-to-date "insult" than "drinking the Kool-Aid."

    That was interesting/funny for about 5 minutes, a decade ago.
     
  11. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    Perhaps not, but they're certainly party to its unauthorized disclosure. Which puts them in "knowing violation", as per rule 7 above.
     
  12. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    It's all spelled out in the laws.

    That's the point of all this. Read the laws, for crying out loud. Someone has even posted some of it here.

    It really cannot get much simpler than this.

    EDIT: I deleted some of this post now that someone else is starting to focus on the laws as posted here.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page