Rom-pe, rom-pe
Rompe la pinata

Reporters often embellish their sources to make the stories more credible.

Ooooh, let's look up some of Murray's old stories!

I disagree with Chass' (and some of his sources') take that the reporters should be in trouble for this stuff. It's not like the info sought is secret in and of itself like national security information is. It's secret by virtue of a court order over the conduct of people. Once it's out, it's out, and I can't feature a court seriously considering any sanctions against a reporter simply for asking for it. This is akin to lawyers asking for privileged information in discovery or something. Bad form? Maybe, but not sanctionable (edit: I mean not criminally sanctionable as to the lay person; a lawyer may be given discovery sanctions, I imagine, for repeatedly asking for privileged material).

I'm not set in stone about this and maybe I could be persuaded otherwise, but that's my initial impression.

I'm kinda surprised Chass is taking shots at the Times - didn't he used to/still work for them?

He used to work for them, but there was this time when he wanted to accuse Mike Piazza of steroid use because Piazza had bacne, and the Times people gave him some crazy talk about "that's not really proof" and "we'd get sued", so as you can see, his grudge is perfectly understandable.

If you assist or encourage those people to violate the court order, you’re encouraging them to break the law.

QFT.

---

I agree that Chass questioning all this is pretty rich when he wanted to go public based on backne.

The most surprising thing to me is something already mentioned in No. 1 above:

Sports Illustrated said its information came from four sources, who were not identified. I am highly skeptical that there were four sources. Reporters often embellish their sources to make the stories more credible.

An ethical reporter should never embellish the number of sources. That is equivalent to writing an article based on sources which don't exist. I wouldn't have thought that reporters "often" do this. But the fact that an experienced reporter like Chass says this makes me wonder if this is a bigger problem than I would have thought.

As for the notion that the reporter who wrote about the sealed information can be charged with a crime, I am extremely skeptical. Grand jury information gets leaked all the time, and reporters sometimes make concerted efforts to find someone who will release it. The person who leaks the information could get in big trouble, but generally not the reporters. But maybe that might change, depending on what the reporter did to induce the leak. For example, if the reporter offered money to receive the information, perhaps a crime is more likely to have occurred. In most cases though, reporters receive this information from parties who have some kind of interest in getting the information into the newspaper, and thus don't require much inducement. Of course, the reporter could be called before a grand jury and asked to disclose his sources, which might end up with a contempt of court for refusal to do so (as the Times well knows).

Grand jury information gets leaked all the time

This is the part of this particular kerfuffle that perplexes me. I'm naive here, so hopefully some of you legal beagles can enlighten me.

Really, grand jury information gets leaked all the time? Why? Don't courts and judges actively work to find out who leaked and sanction them hard, to deter such behavior? If not, if everyone kind of winks at it, then why bother to seal the information in the first place?

Really, grand jury information gets leaked all the time? Why? Don't courts and judges actively work to find out who leaked and sanction them hard, to deter such behavior? If not, if everyone kind of winks at it, then why bother to seal the information in the first place?

Well, "all the time" is probably overstating it. There just aren't that many long-term grand jury investigations. There have been two rather prominent cases in the past 15 or so years (BALCO and the Ken Starr GJ) but I can't imagine it really happens that often, because most of the time it isn't worth getting into.

Well, "all the time" is probably overstating it.

Well, if it doesn't happen "all the time," wouldn't that make it a big deal when it does happen, as in this case? Why haven't we heard anything about the court aggressively endeavoring to get to the bottom of this leak and deal with it? Is it happening and I've just missed it?

Why haven't we heard anything about the court aggressively endeavoring to get to the bottom of this leak and deal with it? Is it happening and I've just missed it?

Are we disccusing the 2003 tests, or the BALCO thing? Because in the BALCO case, the court did make a big deal of getting to the bottom of it, the attorney who leaked the testimony was sent to prison.

The 2003 tests aren't related to GJ, it's something else entirely.

Are we disccusing the 2003 tests, or the BALCO thing?

I'm talking about the 2003 tests. Weren't they subpeonaed by the court, and subsequently leaked? I could have this mixed up.

I'm talking about the 2003 tests. Weren't they subpeonaed by the court, and subsequently leaked? I could have this mixed up.

That's my understanding, but that's different from leaking GJ testimony. And being that the leaks are just starting, there may be a (relatively quiet) investigation going on to find out the leakers in this case, just as there was in the BALCO case.

As for the notion that the reporter who wrote about the sealed information can be charged with a crime, I am extremely skeptical. Grand jury information gets leaked all the time, and reporters sometimes make concerted efforts to find someone who will release it. The person who leaks the information could get in big trouble, but generally not the reporters

Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru were on the verge of doing hard time when the BALCO leaker finally decided to take the bullet himself and kept that from happening.

Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru were on the verge of doing hard time when the BALCO leaker finally decided to take the bullet himself and kept that from happening.

But they were going to do time for refusing to identify their source after ordered to do so by the Court, not for printing the leaked information.

That's my understanding, but that's different from leaking GJ testimony. And being that the leaks are just starting, there may be a (relatively quiet) investigation going on to find out the leakers in this case, just as there was in the BALCO case.

OK, thanks. I hope that's the case. Something that's unnerved me about all the media coverage of the 2003 names being leaked (A-Rod, Sosa) is that it seems to be 100% focused on the ballplayer and his issues, and 0% focused on the illegality of his name being publicized in the first place.

Sports Illustrated said its information came from four sources, who were not identified. I am highly skeptical that there were four sources. Reporters often embellish their sources to make the stories more credible.

Indeed. This is one reason why it's absurd to not only take an unsourced accusation at face value, but to criticize others for not doing so.

Well, "all the time" is probably overstating it.

That's true. I am guilty of some embellishment, myself. :) But it does seem to happen at the local level around the country from time to time (and not just on the national stage, like the Ken Starr investigation). If the grand jury proceeding has enough local interest (e.g., investigation of local politicians), it isn't shocking to see leaks in the newspaper. Setting that aside, I hope that the leaks of the 03 test results are investigated. It is reprehensible that officers of the court are violating the court's orders with seeming impunity. And I also think that these leaks are rewarding, to some extent, illegal seizures by law enforcement.

Tricky Dick Posted: July 01, 2009 at 02:29 PM (#3239195)

Well, "all the time" is probably overstating it.

That's true. I am guilty of some embellishment, myself. :)

Then just get someone to delete eighteen and a half of your worst posts and no one will know.

Then just get someone to delete eighteen and a half of your worst posts and no one will know.

Where is Rose Mary Woods?

As for the notion that the reporter who wrote about the sealed information can be charged with a crime, I am extremely skeptical.

As much as these reporters disgust me, me too. Chass doesn't seem to have talked to a lawyer who has read Bartnicki v. Vopper.