- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,251
- 1
- 61
The second "Balco" grand jury has ordered the two reporters who have been following the story, and who published a book based on leaked testimony from the last GJ, to reveal their sources for said testimony.
The reporters are, of course, refusing to comply and have both said they are prepared to sit in jail until the GJ has concluded.
Which is more important... The public's right to know or the judicial systems ability to conduct its business?
It's like this... The athletes who testified at the first GJ against BalCo did so with immunity and the promise that their testimony would be sealed, thereby protecting their reputations (which were all shattered when the testimony was leaked).
The reporters got their information by promising to never reveal how or from whom they got it.
SO...
If a judge can order a reporter to reveal his sources then why would anyone come forward with information to a reporter that could hurt them?
Conversely, why would anyone testify to a GJ if they know their testimony will most likely be leaked?
How do you view this situation?
The reporters are, of course, refusing to comply and have both said they are prepared to sit in jail until the GJ has concluded.
Which is more important... The public's right to know or the judicial systems ability to conduct its business?
It's like this... The athletes who testified at the first GJ against BalCo did so with immunity and the promise that their testimony would be sealed, thereby protecting their reputations (which were all shattered when the testimony was leaked).
The reporters got their information by promising to never reveal how or from whom they got it.
SO...
If a judge can order a reporter to reveal his sources then why would anyone come forward with information to a reporter that could hurt them?
Conversely, why would anyone testify to a GJ if they know their testimony will most likely be leaked?
How do you view this situation?