Should Reporters Go to Jail for Failure to Reveal Sources?

[lawrocket 3]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AvPj4SW09PqvgAYFFc.eg0o5nYcB?slug=ap-bonds-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns

Two reporters for the San Francisco Chronicle have been ordered into the pokey for failure to reveal the name or names of people who leaked information to them about a secret grand jury investigation re: Barry Bonds.

This IS a political question. Had this been a California investigation, the reporters would have had no problem due to a shield law that protects the reporters. Since it is federal, though, that shield law doesn't apply. There is currently a bill in Congress that seeks to provide a shield.

I think these reporters should suck it up.

Secret grand juries have reasons for being secret grand juries, i.e., you don't want to release grand jury testimony or information about a person who may have a good defense. They are one sided. Whomever leaks this stuff should face the consequences of breaking that silence. The reporters don't want to give out information that may damage someone? It's what they did to Bonds, right?

On the other hand, reporters often do a valuable service. We all know that the reporters aren't the ones that the prosecutors want - they want the people who leaked the info, and the reporters know who these people are.

I actually think to me to most compelling reason they should face the consequence is that these reporters that they made money off of these leaks - if these guys enjoyed the fruits of these leaks for their own benefit, I think that they should have to bear some of the consequence of using information that was given to them illegally.

We wouldn't allow a securities trader to make money off of inside information. We don't care if the tippee didn't know that the tipper's information was inside. Why would we let a reporter make the money without consequence off of information obtained from a person via a crime when we won't let other people do it?

I don't think it's right to make reporters an exception to the rules governing everybody else.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PLFXpert 0]

I'm in a hurry, but I've been thinking about this subject recently, also.

I haven't really had time to form a solid opinion, but my initial thought is there should be a penalty, but a very light one.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

The reporter should be prosecuted for printing secrets. Whether his/her knowlege is first hand or not every journalist knows that Grand Jury transcripts are government secrets. Shield laws should be specific to protecting journalists who are exposing illegal activities by the gov.

[Zeppo 0]

You bring up an interesting point with the comparison to insider trading. Some measure should be taken to ensure that the information was legally obtained.

Any person who illegally gives out information that is illegal, he is the one who should face the consequences.

If a reporter didn't know that the information was secret, then he should have no concern revealing his source.

Should the reporter choose to not reveal this source, then there should definitely be a penalty, both to the reporter, and the station/paper.

I think the most appropriate charge here though would be interfering with a criminal investigation. Not sure the consequences of it, but I think it involves jail time.

We can't blame the reporter for distrubiting information that was illegal, if he didn't know it was illegal, but like you said...reporters should suck it up.

What goes up, must come DOWN!!!

[Hayfield 0]

I don't think your analogy works. Typically a reporter works for a newspaper, network, etc. they are probably on salary, so they will not directly profit from inside info the way a stock trader would.
A free press is too integral to a real democracy. The press helps to keep our leaders in line. Deepthroat (not the movie) ring a bell? Short of compromising national security by publishing classified or secret information usable by an enemy, I am completely against the threat of imprisonment for non collaboration.
This is America, we have an obligation to uphold and defend the constitution first and foremost.

"Remember the First Commandment: Don't Fuck Up!"
-Crusty Old Pete

[Shawndiver 0]

Depends on the subject.
These reporters took privileged information from a grand jury investigation and made it public. Their source knew that it was illegal, they knew it was illegal. What was the benefit to the public in this case by releasing this info? That professional athletes use drugs? Hardly a reason to break federal law. But it will sell a pretty good number of newspapers, so it sounds to me that this particular case is more about monetary gain than defending the greater good of society.

The reporters say that this will prevent others from talking to reporters and they will not be able to do their jobs. But what about preventing people from talking to a grand jury when they know that the information they provide can be leaked to a reporter who will then use the 1st amendment to shield and justify that leak?

If that information provides a clear benefit to society, (corruption, terrorist plot, etc) that would not be known otherwise, I can see the benefit of protecting the journalist who breaks the news. But in this case, I think it is pretty clear that the motivation behind it was just sensational gossip.

_________________

[livendive 8]

Imagine you were under investigation for child molestation, a grand jury was convened, and they decided there was insufficient evidence to warrant a trial. Would you be ok with a journalist cherry-picking the details of the grand jury investigation and only printing those which seem suspicious?

I don't have a firm answer to this question myself. I think in some cases it seems appropriate for journalists to be able to protect their sources, but in other cases there should be consequences for irresponsible reporting.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Amazon 7]

Hell yes... send them off to jail like they do in other fascist counbtires around the world.

We the people are not GUARANTEED the right to know in the constitution right???

[Hayfield 0]

Wouldn't that fall under slander or defamation of character? You would have some recourse, but the damage to your name would have been done... Damn, this is a complex issue.
When I think about these types of issues I try to keep the big picture in mind- what will this turn into down the road? Thats what I worry about. Maybe I read a little too much 20th century Russian and German history- so i guess i scare easy!
Blue Skies

"Remember the First Commandment: Don't Fuck Up!"
-Crusty Old Pete

[Andy9o8 2]

As far as I'm concerned, there already is a Federal shield law. It's called the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. But whether in the US or any other modern democracy, a free and unfettered press is an absolute requirement for a functioning democracy. And being able to gather and report from confidential sources is an absolute requirement for having a free and unfettered press. Analogies don't work in this particular case – the press holds a unique place in a democratic society, and that's what makes me uncomfortable comparing the press to other institutions of society (like your interesting example of securities traders).

As I've written before, that's what the Pentagon Papers case (New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 91 S. Ct. 2140, 29 L. Ed. 2d 822 (1971) ) was all about. The Supreme Court got it right back in 1971; the courts are getting wrong today.

I admit I have a fairly inflexible attitude about restrictions on the press, but to me, this is pretty much an absolute. Jailing reporters for refusing to disclose a confidential source?? In the United States of America??? My God, it's just appalling – and inexcusable in any democracy.

To me, this really is a no-brainer.

PS. - to anyone who's tempted to say, "Yeah, well, what about (fill in example)?", I say again: analogies really don't work here.

[Gawain 0]

It think it could depend on the issue, though there needs to be a metric sensitive to the process as well. Grand Jury testamony is supposed to be secret. The system is designed that way for a reason.

However, the secret sources of journalists has proven to be a valuable, albeit controversial, asset.

I believe the system can accomodate a case-by-case basis in areas outside of national security and foreign affairs. In instances of national security, the journalists have a duty as citizens to take that into account. In instances of foreign affairs, they have the duty as a truly concerned party to use an equal amount of discretion.

In the current context, the investigation of Barry Bonds, I don't know. Barry Bonds may be a great ball player, but has he been deprived of effective due process of the law because of this? He came by the hospital to meet some soldiers. He's not that great of a guy, didn't spend ten minutes meeting over a dozen soldiers, no autographs, and rushed through pictures. The USO did their best with what they had, but everyone was like...uh...wha...??

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Hayfield 0]

Thank you. I couldn't have put it better, and didn't.

"Remember the First Commandment: Don't Fuck Up!"
-Crusty Old Pete

[quade 4]

Quote

On the other hand, reporters often do a valuable service. We all know that the reporters aren't the ones that the prosecutors want - they want the people who leaked the info, and the reporters know who these people are.

I actually think to me to most compelling reason they should face the consequence is that these reporters that they made money off of these leaks - if these guys enjoyed the fruits of these leaks for their own benefit, I think that they should have to bear some of the consequence of using information that was given to them illegally.

Reporters need to be shielded for the same reasons that there are whistle blower protection laws. It makes no sense whatsoever to shield the whistle blower if you can't also shield people that report similar information.

The fact that the reporters make money off the information isn't relevant. SOMEBODY is going to "make money" off of any information that is disseminated and the amount the reporter makes pales in comparison to the amount the rest of the news industry will make off the story, or the lives that could be saved, or any one of a number of other issues.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

I answered depends because there might be circumstances that dictate a difference. Otherwise, the answer is no. And in this case, there is certainly no harm to society - it's fucking baseball.

The crime was committed by the leaker, not the lucky recipients. Would you view them as less guilty if they managed to find the information in a dumpster?

That said, the athletes were the losers in this pathetic process. They were given a choice of confession with the promise of privacy, or the threat of perjury charges. All to go after a third party, BALCO. Yet the grand jury utterly failed to meet their end of the deal and it's also pretty clear that they wanted to get Bonds, either with the confession or with the perjury angle.

This isn't the reporters' problem, though.

[Squeak 17]

I think that if the validity of information is in question, then at least the judge should be privy to the source of the information, it's all too convienient to say I cant reaveal my sources.

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[Squeak 17]

that case would hold more water if all reporters were above reproach, and totally honest in their reporting

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[akarunway 1]

ABSOLULTLYFUCKING NOT. Maybe the leakers

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Zing 2]

I was once a mild-mannered reporter for a metropolitan newspaper. Reporters already lack credibility for numerous reasons, but we all cultivated sources that gave us info based on that premise that the source was not disclosed.

Lacking the protection of the First Amendment, sources will be irrevocably lost, resulting in even worse reporting ...and it can get worse.

Each reporter risks being ordered to disclose a source and must decide for themselves wether or not to talk or go to jail.

Zing Lurks

[freeflir29 0]

In this particular case...........Hell yes. Send them to jail. They "stole" information from a grand jury. It was illegal. Period.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

In this particular case...........Hell yes. Send them to jail. They "stole" information from a grand jury. It was illegal. Period.

You can't steal information from a grand jury, as it is not property.

Someone allegedly disclosed information from a grand jury, which is a felony, they disclosed it to a reporter and maybe others, the reporters then printed or otherwise dissiminated this information and are being held on contempt for not disclosing their source, as that source would be tried for the original disclosure.

What if the reporters decide to disclose this information, what will happen the next time an issue is raised and a person decides to or not to disclose? Will it lead to an even more secetive society?

Why in the first place is it that grand jury testimony is forever dealed? That comming right up.

[Lucky... 0]

Let's examine why grand jury testimony is sealed. Why is this information not public right from the start? Why is it not unsealed after all proceedings?

Many on here might not understand grand jury proceedings, so I will cover it in a general way. I'm no expert, such as lawrocket likely is, but I understand the gist of them.

When the prosecutors (selectively) decide to pursue a crime and file a charge, they can direct file in most cases. The defense can then file Orders to Show Cause or other motions to have hearings to establish that there isn't enough evidence to hold teh defendants. But for more serious crimes the prosecutor must go to a grand jury to get the indictment or true bill. The prosecutor can go there as many times as they wish, no matter how many denials. Generally, the GJ is a rubber stamp for the prosecution. During the GJ hearing, the only allowed people are the judge and staff, the prosecution and any witnesses the prosecutor decides they want. Defense is not allowed unless the prosecution wants them there, which is rare.

There is another option I've seen and that is to have a 3-day mini trial. They cover all the evidence in open court, it is very time-consuming and they end up revealing any tricks they might have, so this is not desireable.

So, with all this secrecy, the prosecutor can lie their asses off without fear of being exposed. I can see why the GJ should be sealed until after all proceedings, but why is it then sealed forever? Could it be that a member of the grand jury could come forward after a trial and conviction and say that the prosecutor lied at the GJ and had he/she told the truth, there would have been not indictment? Would it throw yet another black eye upon the already shady nature of prosecutions?

This, to me, is one of the nastiest aspects of the US. We brag all this, "open book" nature of our government, yet even in a state trial we can't keep from being secetive. Does this seem as sleezy to others as it does to me? What is any advantage of sealing the GJ testimony after the trial?

[tbrown 26]

Sending reporters to jail is a bare naked attempt to silence a vigilant press. Not that the press has been all that vigilant lately.

Look at what happened with the Valerie Plame fiasco. You had government officials blowing the cover of a CIA operative, which is a felony. We know now that it was Richard Armitage - Mr. "bomb Pakistan back to the stone age". Is Armitage being prosecuted ? No, he is not. Scooter Libby is being prosecuted for botching thhe coverup. But the only people sent to jail have been the journalists who reported the story.

Read between the lines, you can figure out the rest.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Amazon 7]

Quote

But the only people sent to jail have been the journalists who reported the story.

Read between the lines, you can figure out the rest.

Like I said before.. it certainly works well in a LOT of other countires. Dictators love that shit.

[pirana 0]

I voted yes, but on one condition. That would be that priests and other church officials actually have to go to jail for fucking the little boys in their parish instead of just getting shuffled of to a new location.

I wonder if they intentionally get caught when they get bored with the locals, as a way to move on to fresh meat.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley