Integrity of Journalism

Drip, Drip, Drip: Another Leak

by Eric Osguthorpe

Every corner we turn, there is a leak to find. From its media-fueled beginnings with the Pentagon Papers to the blockbuster court case stemming from Jeffery Wigand’s tell-all on the tobacco industry, corporate, legal and government data leaks drop more and more. Alleged steroids and Barry Bonds, the sexual innuendo of Representative Mark Foley’s emails to paiges - the media and leakers serve once private information to the public domain. At what point does private information deserve to remain so; when are sources held legally responsible; where does freedom of the press meet the shackles?

San Francisco Chronicle writers Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams obtained grand jury transcripts from the BALCO steroid investigation. Documents are leaked by local or federal authorities for some purpose. Whether it is for financial gain or disdain for Barry Bonds, no one knows.

Take Wada, Williams and their source for example. There’s little mistaking the motives of the writers. They are sports writers by trade, not investigative journalists - more Jerry Springer than Anderson Cooper - and both milked this story dry. They received a book deal, unending press coverage, and higher public perception all in the name of their higher calling: journalism…or some other printed-paper product.

Beyond sports, immigration and gay marriage are issues of greater importance to our nation (at least come every election year). Yet a fair chunk of resources and Congressional PR was dedicated to the issue that fooled a nation. No matter that baseball is no longer our favorite pastime, and forget the proverbial wool over our eyes in Iraq.

The government launched a full-scale hunt for the source of the transcripts. With no results to speak of, down came threats of jail time to Wada and Williams. Both journalists gave no ground and received an eighteen-month sentence. While leaking certain government data such as troop positions and classified intelligence has fallen under criminality for quite some time, the private sector is catching up: non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), copyright law, trade law, and electronic records statutes are all designed to discourage those in the know from becoming a source. History shows that those reporting typically go free; those disseminating the information pay the price. It’s not fair. It’s just the nature of things.

Though recently, using the Bonds case as a prime example, prosecutors eschewed the freedom of the press mantra and now two may split the tab. Journalists must not go unpunished if publishing government or corporate secrets is deemed more harmful than good in their ‘service’ to public awareness. Leakers shall not be prosecuted, harassed or jailed for informing that a US Representative is a pedophile or that cigarettes can kill. Judges cannot punish sources of detrimental, corporate privacies, no matter what intellectual property claims and agreements may exist.

All must tread carefully in the manner of finding such information, since, regardless, certain means of obtaining such information is a crime. The problem lies in deciding what is important to the public and what information is best kept secret. Who is to say that the information of Barry Bonds’ alleged used of steroids is fit for public consumption at the expense of a grand jury investigation? It is evident that appointing a position, or committee, to determine such questions would be a move fraught with the opportunity for heavy, political undertow.

Though much the same, Congress has taken these issues upon itself. With numerous bills concerning stiffening penalties for leaking classified information and a shield law designed to protect journalists from revealing their sources, these disparate ideals, though seemingly at odds, must slowly equal the scales. Coming to that point is undoubtedly subject to see-saw. Let us start with freedom of the press, and then begin adding to the contrary.