The writers of the book "Game of Shadows" (the expose book that makes the claim that Barry Bonds has been taking steroids since 1999) are facing over a year of jail time. They have refused to relinquish the name of the person from whom they received an illegal transcript of Barry Bonds grand jury testimony. Apparently, they believe they are within their legal rights to withhold this information or at the very least, are ethically required to protect their informant.
So here is the question of the hour: If you were a journalist, would you give up your source to avoid going to prison?
The issues that I would have to consider are as follows: The source did something illegal and now expects me to cover for him. There is no telling whether or not the journalists gave their word that they wouldn't turn the informant in to the authorities. Even if they had, is there wisdom in agreeing to protect someone from punishment if they broke a law that is not unethical? Grand jury testimony must be protected or else people would fear testifying.
Do their ethical requirements change if they approached the snitch and asked for the information? I argue that they don't. The leaker is still the one who chose to break the law and is responsible for his choice (and if he were reimbursed for this leak, he's all the more in the wrong).
An odd twist to this case is that the journalists have not committed a crime by simply having the leaked information. This is not like stolen property, where it is against the law to have possession of it. Their crime is refusing to answer a question posed to them by a judge. They are in contempt of court.
I suppose it would have to come down to how strongly I felt about the information. Did my source leak information to me that could topple the government? I'd probably protect them. Did they leak information to me regarding mob or organized crime activity? I'd definitely protect them (mostly because I'm probably safer in prison anyway.) Did they leak information about something that nearly everyone accepted as fact? I'd probably turn them in.
Many people have said this falls under the first amendment with freedom of the press. However, they wrote a book. They are making money off of this information. This wasn't a breaking news story, this was a for-profit endeavor. Also, journalists are free to print whatever they like, it's how they get their information that's in question. If a journalist broke and entered an office to obtain information, is he or she immune from prosecution for that crime? I don't think so.
Bottom line: There are consequences for our actions. The man who leaked the grand jury testimony should have assumed he'd face possible jail time. If the journalists want to protect him and take his jail time, that's their prerogative. However, they are not ethically required to protect him from the consequences of his own actions.
Well, that's just my opinion. What's yours?
5 comments:
no one has any opinions on this?? Ok, having an actual degree in Journalism and a bit of experience in the business, my thinking is this: Its stupid to take the fall for someone else when its been their choose to break the law regardless of whether or not you benefited from it.
So, if these guys want to go to jail to cover their source or believe this is their chance to play the martyr and get in their 15 minutes of fame -- go for it, if that's what floats your boat.
Why would they get in trouble for not squealing on their source? Don't they also have the "right to remain silent"?
They've been required by a judge to go before a grand jury and tell their source. This is the only time you do not have the right to remain silent. You must testify before a grand jury or face jail time. (Unless you are incriminating yourself.)
OK. I’ll bite. I don’t have a degree in journalism, but I do have a degree in US history, so I feel qualified to speak here. A free and independent press is one of the foundations of liberty, and as such, it must be afforded protections. A press that can be controlled by the government (including the courts) is a censored press, and therefore unable to perform its essential service: to inform the citizenry. Sources in sensitive situations (whistle blowers, people in a position to be harmed as a result of revealing information) will not go to the press if they are not afforded confidentiality. This does not serve the public good. Journalists need to be able to keep their word that things spoken in confidence will remain in confidence, or their role is compromised. Now granted, the situation here is about baseball, so it’s not like it’s something that protects the nation’s interests, but the principle is exactly the same. It’s just not done.
Any last words from Massachusetts?
Post a Comment