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!

Murray Chass, NYT ombudsman and MLBPA's best friend

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Smasher_Sloan, Sep 19, 2010.

  1. Smasher_Sloan

    Smasher_Sloan Active Member

    May you never leave a place with the kind of bitterness that has consistently polluted Murray's non-blog:

  2. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    You know, Smasher, point taken. But to me, there have always been more ethical and legal issues involved in the release of these names beyond the simple journalism involved. I don't agree with why Chass is writing what he is -- "But it’s not the kind of journalism the Times practiced during my 39 years with the newspaper." -- but I agree with some of the objections he raises.
  3. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    You know, if a reporter induced a source to violate a court order and turn over documents showing that the teams were making more money than they publicly acknowledged and where they privately admitted that they did so to keep players salaries down, somehow I doubt Murray Chass would be castigating that reporter’s ethics.
  4. WriteThinking

    WriteThinking Well-Known Member

    WFW. If a reporter did this, Chass would be citing him/the story in his stories, and we would all be applauding the person on gaining the source's trust/willingness to talk and calling it great reporting.

    If talking about something would be in contempt of court, the onus for not doing so would be on the would-be offending party.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page