Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Chronicle “BALCO” Reporters Do Not Merit Public Support
Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada face jail time for refusing to disclose who leaked them confidential testimony from grand jury proceedings on the “BALCO” steroids scandal. The publication of this leaked testimony got the reporters a book deal, national media attention, frequent front-page Chronicle headlines, and the chance to do what so many of their colleagues have wanted to do for years, which was to damage the credibility of Barry Bonds’ baseball achievements. Publishing illegally leaked testimony hardly constitutes “investigative reporting,” nor is it clear that what the reporters did was in the “public interest.” To the contrary, Williams and Fainaru-Wada did a public disservice by elevating non-credible, unverified testimony in a secret hearing to the status of “TRUTH,” and produced stories without telling readers how grand jury hearing lack any of the procedural or judicial safeguards normally associated with our system of justice.
Nobody should want journalists to go to jail for the stories they write, and I certainly do not want Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada to suffer that fate. But opposing their going to jail is different from claiming that their leaking of grand jury testimony on steroid use in baseball represented a “public service,” or that it even served the public interest at all.
Grand jury’s are notoriously anti-democratic institutions that can easily be manipulated by prosecutors---like Kenneth Starr---for political ends. Since these bodies meet in secret, there is no way for independent observers to objectively assess the demeanor or credibility of witnesses, something that is taken for granted in civil and criminal trials.
Although testimony before grand juries is under oath, those familiar with the justice system know that people lie in court all the time. That is why the right to cross-examination of witnesses is so important. Cross-examination enables counsel to catch witnesses in their lies, and ensures that the trier of fact does not give credibility to such testimony.
The Chronicle’s BALCO team was so excited to be revealing juicy details about Barry Bonds’ alleged steroid use that they virtually ignored the significance of the grand jury testimony not being subject to cross-examination. The fact that witnesses had a demonstrated history of lacking credibility, a financial or personal incentive to lie, or had even participated in blackmail-type schemes against Bonds became irrelevant, since none of these issues could be brought out during cross-examination.
I did not read every steroids story the reporters wrote based on being handed leaked testimony, but those I read did not address how the one-sided nature of the grand jury hearing may not be the best way---or even a reliable way---to find the truth. Nor did I read stories where the reporters essentially played the role of cross-examiner, raising the type of bias and credibility issues that Bonds’ attorney certainly would raise if charges are ever brought against him.
The Chronicle reporters published testimony of questionable credibility as if it were an objective historical record. That is not good journalism, and it is not in the public interest.
More
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=3593#more
Grand jury’s are notoriously anti-democratic institutions that can easily be manipulated by prosecutors---like Kenneth Starr---for political ends. Since these bodies meet in secret, there is no way for independent observers to objectively assess the demeanor or credibility of witnesses, something that is taken for granted in civil and criminal trials.
Although testimony before grand juries is under oath, those familiar with the justice system know that people lie in court all the time. That is why the right to cross-examination of witnesses is so important. Cross-examination enables counsel to catch witnesses in their lies, and ensures that the trier of fact does not give credibility to such testimony.
The Chronicle’s BALCO team was so excited to be revealing juicy details about Barry Bonds’ alleged steroid use that they virtually ignored the significance of the grand jury testimony not being subject to cross-examination. The fact that witnesses had a demonstrated history of lacking credibility, a financial or personal incentive to lie, or had even participated in blackmail-type schemes against Bonds became irrelevant, since none of these issues could be brought out during cross-examination.
I did not read every steroids story the reporters wrote based on being handed leaked testimony, but those I read did not address how the one-sided nature of the grand jury hearing may not be the best way---or even a reliable way---to find the truth. Nor did I read stories where the reporters essentially played the role of cross-examiner, raising the type of bias and credibility issues that Bonds’ attorney certainly would raise if charges are ever brought against him.
The Chronicle reporters published testimony of questionable credibility as if it were an objective historical record. That is not good journalism, and it is not in the public interest.
More
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=3593#more
Add Your Comments
Latest Comments
Listed below are the latest comments about this post.
These comments are submitted anonymously by website visitors.
TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
fuck the american working class
Tue, Aug 22, 2006 11:08AM
Really?
Fri, Aug 18, 2006 10:23AM
sounds like a Giants fan
Thu, Aug 17, 2006 10:24AM
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$95.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network