Are journalists better diggers of information than police and prosecutors? Or, do “sources” trust or simply like journalists better?
Investigative journalists have done a lot of good. Unless, of course, you’re President Richard M. Nixon. Or, Barry Bonds. They might disagree.
“USA Today” Columnist Christine Brennan (and Toledo, Ohio, native!) has a column today that talks notes the possible jail time two “San Francisco Chronicle” reporters face if they do not divulge to federal prosecutors the source(s) who leaked grand jury testimony from Bonds that he allegedly unknowingly took steroids.
While reading the column, this hit me: Why can’t federal prosecutors do the same digging that the two Chronicle reporters did?
“In a hearing in U.S. District Court in San Francisco Thursday afternoon, the two reporters will tell Judge Jeffrey White why they shouldn’t be put in jail for refusing to reveal who leaked them confidential grand jury testimony they reported in exposing Bonds and others. The U.S. attorney on the case, Debra Wong Yang, wants Williams and Fainaru-Wada to go to jail for 18 months unless they reveal their source, which they of course will not do.”
Why is it that “sources” will talk to journalists but not to the authorities?
Well, in this case, I guess the fact that divulging grand jury testimonial that isn’t your own testimony is illegal.
But — and I don’t mean to disparage the police or other authories, I have the utmost respect for them — there must be other reasons why these “sources” tend to speak up more to journalists than authorities.
For an opposing view to Brennan’s column, check out, Why Reporters Must Reveal Illegal Leakers at the Ethics Scoreboard.
– Mike
Technorati tags: investigative journalism
