I have recently released two articles on RealGMBaseball.com which detail the Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams story and contain RealGM Exclusive interviews.
There are two different articles, one of which is a news-report, reported on a straight-fact basis and is much shorter than the editorial piece. I would encourage you to read the editorial piece, but if you'd rather read the report, it will take less of your time.
As I've said on other blogs regarding this topic, giving up your sources is a journalistic no-no. I would happily accept jail time if it meant protecting my sources.
The point you make in the editorial (I didn't read the other one) about it being unanimous that journalists would accept jail time, and comparing it to 60% of the American public believing that the two journalists should reveal their sources, is gold. Other people ("other" being non-journalists) just don't know the give-and-take between journalists and those who give them information.
I don't agree with what these guys have written about and how they've used it to propel themselves into the American spotlight, but I have to commend them if they stay the course and protect their sources. How much of "Game of Shadows" is fact is beyond me, as I haven't read it, and nor could I confirm or deny much -- if anything -- in it, but they have to protect the information nonetheless.
As noted in the editorial, I couldn't agree with you more.
I enjoyed the quote by Wilbon where he stated that people outside of the journalism community might not understand the real importance of protecting your sources. Mark and Lance might end up in prison -- if they do, they wont be the first, and they wont be the last reporters to be imprisoned for protecting their sources.
As far as the content of their book goes, I would assume that there's a good deal of factual information -- it's certainly possible that a few of their sources had personal vendettas against Bonds. However, it would be hard for me to say that everything contained in the book is incorrect -- whether or not it's true, these players are innocent until proven guilty by the court of law. While these reporters provide a public service by revealing information, Bonds has no book to defend himself against the information contained in 'Game of Shadows' -- it is this aspect which puts Bonds at a disadvantage, one which can only be fairly tried in a court system. Until he is convicted, Bonds is an innocent man.
Furthermore, steroids were not banned in baseball when he allegedly used them, therefore Bonds did not cheat in the game of baseball, unless he continued using the substances after MLB banned them -- which doesn't seem to be the case.
Great Job! I agree with most everything you had to say. These two authors did what MLB could not do. Or flat our refused to do. What MLB doesn't understand, is that without pointing out the guilty parties, the league has a whole gets a bad image. Anyway...,
In my opinion, the authors should not give up their source. Even if that means they are found guilty of contempt, and serve jail time. The issue is too big of interest for the American public. It holds no threat of physical harm to anyone, it is not a matter of National Security, it's just the truth about Bonds.
Northsider It would appear as always the Justice System would rather persecute those who choose to uphold the integrity of their profession. Rather than punish those who impune their profession by perjury and blatant misdeeds. As evidenced by the upcoming Libby case. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald will probably in the end not have much of a case against Libby as amny of the supposed material willl be treated as classified by the government.
"Great Job! I agree with most everything you had to say. These two authors did what MLB could not do. Or flat our refused to do. What MLB doesn't understand, is that without pointing out the guilty parties, the league has a whole gets a bad image. "
I totally agree with this statement, the MLB wasn't willing to inform the public. Does it hit anyone that if the MLB or the government would have revealed these names, we wouldn't be talking about it right now.
"it is not a matter of National Security, it's just the truth about Bonds."
Exactly. These reporters aren't withholding the names of murderers, as the popular analogy suggests. This is the truth, the government should blame itself for not revealing these names earlier.
"Northsider It would appear as always the Justice System would rather persecute those who choose to uphold the integrity of their profession."
Definitely, and not only is this the integrity of a profession -- this profession is the foundation of the check on the government -- a free press. Without the use of confidential sources, we cannot have a true 'free-press'.
If and when this country gets to the point where there is another government scandal, we will never find the truth, if reporters cannot use confidential sources.
"Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald will probably in the end not have much of a case against Libby as amny of the supposed material will be treated as classified by the government. "
You're probably right on this matter, although it still remains to be seen.
Last edited by NorthSider on August 22nd at 10:19 AM.
Northsider Die hard Beatles fan eh. Bet you wouldn't to be in McCartney's shoes at the moment ? That hefer Heather Mills is looking to take him to the cleaners. Ican't believe that the courts give her supposedly what she's looking for. Allegedly it's somewhere northwards of $450m for just 4 years of marriage ? Bi@$h had better be worth it !
Last edited by tophatal on August 22nd at 10:30 AM.
He was on Howard Stern When he got married and Howard asked him if he got a pre nup. Paul said "no i don't believe in them". So Howard Says "You're an #### my friend"
Last edited by bengals9 on August 22nd at 10:36 AM.
"He was on Howard Stern When he got married and Howard asked him if he got a pre nup. Paul said "no i don't believe in them". So Howard Says "You're an #### my friend" "
I didn't hear this anywhere, that's pretty interesting.
NorthSider, interesting editorial. I wonder though if journalists aren't being somewhat self-serving and not so altruistic when they protect sources. The reason journalists stand as a group is because they know if someone renigs on a promise of anonymity, it lessens the chances for all journalists to get information. This does serve the public, but it also serves the journalists, who can't do their job without information.
The reason the public in large wants to know the sources is because they don't trust journalists much more than other groups they perceive as self-serving. The average person wants all the facts, including the source, so that they can make their own decision about believability .
I do think it's good that these authors are staying true to their word, but I would feel a little better about them if they had simply released this as a news story. Go the Woodward route. Release the news, then write the book.
"The reason journalists stand as a group is because they know if someone renigs on a promise of anonymity, it lessens the chances for all journalists to get information."
Certainly, but this is the way the profession works. To ensure that journalists are able to receive this information is vital for this country. As I said, journalists work as a check to the government -- it's perhpas self-serving if you look at it in a certain way, but these measures are understood when you take the job as a reporter.
"This does serve the public, but it also serves the journalists, who can't do their job without information."
They also can't do their job while they're in jail. What Mark and Lance are doing isn't self-serving, it's serving the profession of journalism and therefore, serving the public. After having spoken with the two, neither are looking forward to the possibility of jail time -- they aren't doing this for the sake of their own desires, they're doing this to preserve the sanctity of the profession.
"The reason the public in large wants to know the sources is because they don't trust journalists much more than other groups they perceive as self-serving."
No one has even suggested in any of these cases that the information provided by Lance and Mark is untrue. In fact, most people jump to conclusions over their reporting -- throwing siringes at Bonds on-field.
The public has no problem believing the reporting of these two, so this argument is not accurate.
"The average person wants all the facts, including the source, so that they can make their own decision about believability."
I agree with you in the sense that journalists are often questioned -- and this is why an article which contains only confidential sources is hastily questioned. The difference between that, and Game of Shadows is, most of the sources are on-the-record and are named -- there are only a few unnamed sources.
What's more, the information provided by some of the confidential sources is grand jury testimony -- it's easy to see why the source would want to be confidential. And finally, since it's grand jury testimony, if it were false, the government would jump all over it -- not to mention the fact that it would take a great deal of imagination to make-up the testimony of several professional athletes.
My comments were more about journalists as a group than these authors. And, as I say, about perception. Whether a writer's motives are pure, we trust reporters only slightly more than other "establishment" figures. This used to be not the case, but reporters, like other authority figures, have lost standing in the cynical times of today.
"I do think it's good that these authors are staying true to their word, but I would feel a little better about them if they had simply released this as a news story. Go the Woodward route. Release the news, then write the book."
Umm -- what story did you read? The book came after several articles published by Fainaru-Wada and Williams over their investigations into BALCO. They did release the news before they wrote the book.
"This used to be not the case, but reporters, like other authority figures, have lost standing in the cynical times of today."
I don't disagree with you -- I just believe that this specific case is not an example of journalistic malpractice, and people aren't questioning the validity of the information reported. But rather, the legality of what their source provided -- and given that the source was guaranteed confidentiality, these reporters are doing the right thing, the altruistic thing.
"I'm sorry, what i meant was write the book after the story is over. The story is still ongoing."
You might be right -- but these reporters had this story come to them. Rather than wait for other journalists to be able to report and write about the same story, they released the book while it was solely their information. And the book shed new light in the public eye. I'm in full support of the book, of course, that's only my opinion -- I just don't see anything wrong with the writing of a book.
I enjoyed reading the editorial, and like Ultra (scary words, sent a chill down me)I didn't read the story, probably should have. I do have one more thought. By releasing the book before the story was complete, the authors have now become a major part of the story, something any journalist should try to avoid.
Last edited by hogfan480618 on August 22nd at 12:34 PM.
Seperate from the source confidentiality issue, NorthSider, I'm curious. Do you think by writing a book the authors limited access to the information? As you said, the book has not been a big seller. Also, would news stories have been more likely to drive the investigation, ala Woodward?
Guess those are a couple of the reasons I wish they had released the information as news. (And a couple of questions I might have asked could I have interviewed them.) At any rate, it will be interesting to see how it all pans out.
Last edited by hogfan480618 on August 22nd at 12:51 PM.
I read the article on RealSports and just a few comments besides the few misspellings or typos to add to your topic.
First off, if you did indeed interview both authors and the statements you have are from them, then my hat is off to you for being able to do that.
Secondly, I have no problem with journalists not revealing sources for a news story, but when they put it into print for a book, it needs to be verified or its just hearsay. No one can verify the content of the book because it is sealed testimony. We only have the authors' word that it is true.
Thirdly, it is nice to see someone stand up for the author, but what about those who testify with assurances that their testimony will be protected. Everyone seems to be up in arms that the journalists might have to reveal their sources but the people who testified were told they could do so with the same confidence these journalists are being given. It is a double standard. You worry that journalists will never get the stories if they reveal their sources, but one could argue people will not come forward if their anonymity is and information is not protected. Why should Bonds have even testified if he thought his testimony would be leaked? He did not have to incriminate himself and is guaranteed that right under our constitution. He did it with conditions which were clearly violated.
Socal - There is no hearsay about it. Bonds is trying to prove that the book was written from his grand jury testimony. How does that not verify the content of his grand jury testimony? If he was to say that the content of that part of the book is false, he has no case against the court. Can you at least agree that the content of his grand jury testimony is indeed fact? Because if it is not, he is either guilty of perjury, or he has no case against the court. If we can at least agree on that, we can move on to debate the other details. Thanks!
Rob, the contents of the book can not be proved or disproved without opening up the contents of sealed court documents. Bonds can neither agree nor disagree and it would not matter. People have made up their minds so by denying it or agreeing with it, it would not verify it. I can not say that I agree with everything in the book because my understanding is still much of it is speculation based upon things the authors put together. For example, the authors say that Bonds started taking steroids around 1998 after Big Mac had the great year and he was jealous. That means the 500 HR he hit prior to that were all steroid free. I don't know, maybe he was taking them prior to 1998. Was he really jealous? We don't know the motivation. This is all made up or speculation. How much more of the book is speculation we don't know.
As for Bonds being convicted of perjury, his testimony in the grand jury was given under immunity, so he will not be prosecuted for that testimony unless it is proven false. One would assume that means in his testimony he denied using them, otherwise why would it be perjury if he said he used. This is the problem. We all just don't know what was given in that testimony because it was "sealed".
Lastly Rob, Bonds dropped his lawsuit a long time ago against these two men. The courts are asking for his testimony, not him.
Northsider I don't know that you might've seen the film 'Hustle & Flow' ? But the theme song is called 'It's hard for a pimp out here'........in Heather's case it's easy to be a "####" when you're man's a fool.
Northsider - Bengals9 asked above, "How'd you get to talk with Lance and Mark?" You responded, "I conducted interviews with them both."
Well, yeah. That seemed obvious, because it was in your topic heading. But what I think he was wondering is how you went about getting those interviews - was it a simple matter of calling their newspaper and setting something up that way? As a non-journalist who normally doesn't conduct interviews (but might need to someday), I'm curious about what went into preparing this story.
"was it a simple matter of calling their newspaper and setting something up that way?"
Firstly, you need to be a part of a reputable news outlet and have good reason to be speaking with the authors. Secondly, it doesn't hurt to have contacts within the organization to help set up an interview period. If all goes well, and you treat everyone with respect, you can actually end up with a good amount of time for an interview. I spoke to three people (including the two authors) for about 40 minutes each. It's all about having the right associations.
Get this #### hole out of baseball now!Let the real player play.
According to the book, Bonds gulped as many as 20 pills at a time and was so deeply reliant on his regimen that he ordered Anderson to start "cycles" -- a prescribed period of steroid use lasting about three weeks -- even when he was not due to begin one. Steroid users typically stop usage for a week or two periodically to allow the body to continue to produce natural testosterone; otherwise, such production diminishes or ceases with the continued introduction of synthetic forms of the muscle-building hormone.
This ####ker wants kids to pay for his ########.#### you Bonds!Tell your son you suck and could not make it with 20 pills at a time and was so deeply reliant on his regimen that he ordered Anderson to start "cycles" -- a prescribed period of steroid use lasting about three weeks -- even when he was not due to begin one. Steroid users typically stop usage for a week or two periodically to allow the body to continue to produce natural testosterone; otherwise, such production diminishes or ceases with the continued introduction of synthetic forms of the muscle-building hormone.
According to the book, Bonds gulped as many as 20 pills at a time and was so deeply reliant on his regimen that he ordered Anderson to start "cycles" -- a prescribed period of steroid use lasting about three weeks -- even when he was not due to begin one. Steroid users typically stop usage for a week or two periodically to allow the body to continue to produce natural testosterone; otherwise, such production diminishes or ceases with the continued introduction of synthetic forms of the muscle-building hormone.
I am an avid sports writer in my part of town and am active in expressing my opinion (at times, I can get carried away, yes). I am known by many as a die-hard Beatles fan and I always get people talking about my constant references to them. Not only do I find them to be the best band to ever grace the planet, thus far, but I also find them a very good source for comparison in my articles. Hope you enjoy my articles on here as I'm just getting started, and I am always open for commentary.
.
Writer and Featured Columnist, RealGM Sports: www.realgm.c om
.
Read My Articles Daily at RealGMBaseba ll.com Under "Call to the Bullpen"
.
Online Blog at www.northside r.net
