BALCO Reporters Should Not Have to Reveal Sources

Last week, a federal court judge ruled that San Francisco Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada must testify before a federal grand jury and reveal their confidential source who leaked information to them about the testimony in the BALCO case. Thus far, the duo, who wrote a series of articles exposing the widespread use of steroids in baseball and later collaborated on the book “Game of Shadows,” have indicated they would not reveal their sources and would rather go to jail.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, the presiding judge in the case against Williams and Fainaru-Wada, seemed reluctant to rule against the journalists, but admitted his hands were tied. As part of his decision, White wrote, “The court finds itself bound by the law to subordinate [the reporters’] interests to the interests of the grand jury” in discovering the source of the leaks. “The grand jury is inquiring into matters that involve a legitimate need of law enforcement.”

White noted that at the present time, there is no federal law giving reporters protection when asked to reveal their confidential sources. A total of 49 states and Washington DC presently provide at least some protection for reporters seeking to keep secret confidential sources. It is past time for Congress to pass a similar law although the bill presently remains bogged down in the Senate. Given the present administration’s hostility to the press, it is unlikely that a comprehensive press shield law will be passed any time soon.

The need for such a law is pressing. Throughout this country’s history, leaders have acknowledged the important watchdog role a free press plays. James Madison, one of this nation’s founding fathers, explained, “Among those principles deemed sacred in America, among those sacred rights considered as forming the bulwark of their liberty, which the government contemplates with awful reverence and would approach only with the most cautious circumspection, there is no one of which the importance is more deeply impressed on the public mind than the liberty of the press.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglass wrote in 1972 that “The press has a preferred position in our constitutional scheme, not to enable it to make money, not to set newsmen apart as a favored class, but to bring to fulfillment the public’s right to know.”

Confidential sources are vital to the press if it is going to serve as they eyes and ears of the public and allow the citizens to make informed decisions when participating in our democratic form of government. Whistleblowers have helped uncover major instances of criminal behavior such as the Watergate scandal which helped catch the Nixon administration’s attempts to violate the Constitution. Without the use of confidential or anonymous sources, the press may not be able to discover important information and whistle blowers who see corruption or criminal activity in high places will not come forward to inform the people. The government can prevent the people from finding out information it doesn’t want the people to know through intimidation and partisan politics. This can only serve to undermine our democracy.

The two reporters in the BALCO case have done a great public service. They started writing stories before Congress investigated Major League Baseball’s steroid problem and before the sport itself took actions to correct the widespread cheating that had tainted the very fabric of the game. The articles and later the book written by Williams and Fainaru-Wada brought the situation to the public’s attention and created a groundswell of public opinion that led to changes in the sport of baseball and in our society. By bringing attention to the scandal, the reporters also served to educate high school athletes and their parents of the dangers of steroids. Furthermore, the source of the leak in this case did a public service and should not be punished. The reporters have every right to protect their sources.

“We believe they performed a service by creating public awareness of the use of performance-enhancing drugs by some of the best athletes in the world,” explained the reporters’ editor, Phil Bronstein. “As a result of their work, significant reforms have been instituted from Major League Baseball to high school sports.”

Thus far, the San Francisco Chronicle and Bronstein have stood behind the two reporters who have indicated they would rather go to jail to protect their source than reveal his or her identity to the grand jury.

“I can just tell you we’re going to keep doing what we’re doing,” Fainaru-Wada told reporters shortly after Judge White’s ruling came down. “We’re obviously going to stand behind our sources. We feel strongly about this First Amendment issue. We’re hopeful that at some point along the way we’re going to get some relief.”

“We’re just going to continue to do our jobs and remain optimistic that at some point we’re going to find somebody who realizes we should get some relief, and that there’s an important value and service that’s being provided to the public by reporters having the ability to benefit from confidential sources.”

“Hearst [the owners of the paper] and the Chronicle and Phil [Bronstein] have been remarkable in their support of us,” Fainaru-Wada added. “And everybody is steadfast in the importance of this issue and in standing behind us.”

The American public already owe a debt to Williams and Fainaru-Wada for their work exposing baseball’s steroid problem.
Now they deserve our support in the fight for a free press.