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!

San Fran Chronicle reporters probably will have to give up sources ...

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Almost_Famous, Aug 5, 2006.

  1. Almost_Famous

    Almost_Famous Active Member

    in the Bonds case. What a fucking joke.


    paging Judy Miller ...
  2. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    Yeah, Supreme Court rulings that the judge has to abide by are "a fucking joke."

    And you do realize Judy's star fell quite a bit later in that turn of events, don't you?
  3. Almost_Famous

    Almost_Famous Active Member

    Yes, I do.

    Judy Miller was writing about national security. It's understandable for the judge to make her reveal the sources. The Barry Bonds case? Umm, no.

    Writers are not thrilled by this judge's ruling.
  4. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    Again, you must have missed the part where the Supreme Court already ruled on this sort of thing. If you think the court is just going to wink at people obtaining sealed grand jury testimony, then not saying how they got it, you're in for a rude awakening.

    Generally this matter is covered early in any journalism program or law program.
  5. Almost_Famous

    Almost_Famous Active Member

    Well rudely awake me, then. I still believe this is bullshit.

    Sorry, no law classes or J-school for me.

    So if you're the reporters, do you go to jail, or reveal the sources?
  6. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Knock me over with a feather.
  7. Almost_Famous

    Almost_Famous Active Member

    Shocked. People care more about my opinion than a story that figures to be prominent on Sports Reporters sunday, and papers everywhere Monday morning.
  8. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    I don't really care about it. I'm just saying there are facts, and the facts are the Supreme Court already issued a ruling on this type of thing.

    So unless the defendants want to work their way slowly through the court system, step by step, inch by inch, likely serving jail time until they reach the Supreme Court, then they'll have to cough up a name.
  9. The title of this thread is flawed. It should be: "Court will probably compel reporters to give up sources." Because you can bet Williams and Fainaru-Wada are not going to cough up any names, unless those sources come forward on their own. And if the SF Chronicle duo does go to jail, they will have the support of 95 percent of fellow media members.
  10. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    Who apparently didn't pay attention in the aforementioned introductory journalism/law course.
  11. I remember the part about protecting your sources, and independent, investigative reporting requiring said annonymous sources, so if you have to go to jail to protect them, so be it.
  12. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    They are sports guys.

    They will roll like a couple of Firestones.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page