Plenty has already been written across the web about the moral meaning of Alex Rodriguez?s steroid use, and my feelings on steroids in baseball could be summed up in my Bull Durham-esque rant from last year. So let?s move on to a potential crime with far greater implications. No, not charges of ?stalking?. One that starts with that popular code: "STOP SNITCHING!" Sound familiar? In the journalism field this code is so strong that Game of Shadows authors Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams were prepared to face jail time [1] rather than revealed their source of leaked testimony at the BALCO trial. Barry Bonds? trainer Greg Anderson ? another loyal disciple of ?the code? ? was not so lucky. With the aid of illegally leaked grand jury testimony, the Fainaru-Wada and Williams went on to hit more journalistic home runs, and flip that success into new contracts via free agency. A blueprint was set: 1) Testimony/information is ordered sealed by a federal judge. 2) Order is violated, and illegally leaked. 3) Journalist makes illegal information public. 4) Journalist gets praised and backed up by virtually entire journalism field. 5) Journalist writes book highlighted by illegally obtained information. Sports Illustrated was on the scene to heavily promote the Game of Shadows book in a cover story featuring a pained-looking Barry Bonds. Now SI is back again, and Selena Roberts ? who expose the steroid use of Alex Rodriguez ? will be the next journalist to get a career boost. Is Roberts engaging in criminal behavior? While that was my own immediate reaction upon hearing the news, I?m far from an expert in law or all the legal nuances of the Bonds? case. However, Yahoo?s Jonathan Littman has been intimately following the Bonds trial explains why the ?A-Rod Leak Might Have Been a Crime?. Littman discussed the leak itself while Roberts? role was also squarely addressed by the ?The Sports Law Professor? (hat tip: ?Out of Left Field?): - ?A disturbing development? was created by the Sports Illustrated reporters who enticed several insiders with knowledge to break their legal duty and finger Rodriguez. Where is the reporters? complicity? I see Selena Roberts? being interviewed on evening news programs without having to answer for her conduct. If it is not permissible for an insider to reveal the contents of sealed evidence, then why is it morally permissible (if not illegal) for an outsider?? Isn?t luring another to commit a wrong just as culpable as the wrong itself? Yet the reaction is precisely the opposite. Mark Fainaru-Wada, the reporter who abused the legal system by digging out the secret transcripts of grand jury proceedings respecting BALCO and Barry Bonds, instead of spending more time in prison, lands a gig with ESPN. Selena Roberts will undoubtedly rise within the ranks as well. Why does the news reporting industry visibly and tangibly reward employees who lure others to break the law? Today, media writers from every corner are weighing in on how much Alex Rodriguez has destroyed his name and the game he plays. But why doesn?t the media examine its own contribution to the destruction of something far more important than a game? The actions of Roberts, like that of Fainaru-Wada before her, threaten the very legal system on which this country relies. Their actions reveal a disregard for the social good that runs far deeper than that of some 23-year old shortstop sticking a needle in his arm. Psychologically-speaking, Roberts ?disregard for social good? and court wishes smells a lot like steroids in baseball. Roberts previously had a solid body of work as an accomplished reporter, but is looking to keep up with the Joneses and Fainaru-Wada?s. Her book is scheduled to be released in May. So why is this important story getting so ignored by sports media? Because the overwhelming majority of journalists ? who fiercely protect their own ? side with Selena Roberts. They believe she did nothing wrong. Like steroids to many borderline major leaguers, ?stop snitching? is journalism?s survival code. Should a journalist give up their sources, then they will never be trusted again ? career suicide for an investigative reporter. However, somewhere along the way, this healthy code became severely abused. Of course, the overwhelming majority of all leaked sources do not involve potentially aiding and abetting federal crimes. But most sports journalists just don?t see it that way. This could be summed up by ESPN?s Howard Bryant?s recent remarks (worthy of a second reciting on my part): ?The debate over the next few days undoubtedly will shift to the leak, to who spoke to Sports Illustrated and why? The legality of the leak should not be underestimated. Someone has compromised the confidentiality of an agreement. But these questions are important, although they aren?t as important as this fact: The full scope of the steroids era is coming into even clearer focus. In Bryant?s bubble, in Fainaru-Wada?s and Williams? world, and in Robert?s universe their perceived immorality of baseball?s ?steroids era? trumps the orders of a federal judge that can obstruct/influence justice (ironically, the very same dynamic that Bonds is being tried for under ?perjury?!). Bryant?s words are a sad statement on the level of steroid-inflated self-importance of sports journalists. How can one mentally justify such a hierarchy of priorities? Bryant ends: ?Don?t forget that the most important informant in American history ? W. Mark Felt, aka Deep Throat ? took down a president in part because he didn?t receive the promotion he wanted. Nobody complained then, because the information he leaked was legitimate. For the same reasons, nobody should complain now.? Not true. Nobody complained because the information was highly important. If simply being truthful or ?legitimate? were enough grounds to defy a federal judge, then why even have sealed testimony in the first place? Whether Watergate or the Iraq War, there are always special instances where the social value of ?the leak? trumps all else. Is steroids in baseball a matter of national security? Not only does Bryant believe every single word that he writes, but the preposterous comparison was used by Fainaru-wada to hide behind, and is shared across baseball journalism [2]. There is a disturbing sentiment here that is the crux of what is wrong with ?sports media? as a whole, and ?baseball media? in particular?. ?sports morality on steroids?. The sanctimonious baseball media has ALWAYS been out of touch with the real world (note: for a smoking gun watch all 18 hours of Ken Burns? ?Baseball?). It is why polls continually show that fans care far less about steroids, why attendance keeps soaring, and why baseball revenue keeps growing. But this ?sports-morality-on-steroids? epidemic is so severe that sport is mistaken for religion. This disease is so insidious that we get fed a steady diet of articles this week that cite the ?steroid era? as baseball history?s greatest stain or scandal while Rube Foster, Satchel Paige, and Josh Gibson are doing back-flips in their graves. This sickness is so severe that media members believe that they are readily entitled to help others break federal law. Just ask Selena Roberts who was finally asked some real questions by WFAN?s Evan Roberts and Kim Jones on Wednesday (h/t: Can?t Stop The Bleeding) Question: ?Is there any concern and worry over legal issues?" Roberts: ??You know at some point on any story you can be subpoenaed or you can be questioned or something like that. But it?s very important to keep your end of the bargain up, to be true to the journalistic ethic to be true to your sources.? Question: ?So no matter what you will never divulge them??? Roberts: ??I don?t have any plans to, no.? Question: ?Do you think you did anything wrong in this case in getting this information?? Roberts: ??No, I don?t think we did anything wrong, no.? In the first answer aiding a potential serious crime is called ?journalistic ethic?. The second answer is the equivalent to ARod?s ?pretty accurate?, as she leaves open the ?option-to-snitch? should her ?plans? change. The third answer changes the response from previous ?I? statements to a ?we? ? sort of like A-ROD diffusing his offense on account of steroids? ?prevalent culture?. Is this parsing words and splitting hairs? No more than is being applied to any of ARod?s words. Roberts and Sports Illustrated?s behavior may be far more egregious than anything ARod has done. The Sports Law Professor ends: ?Roberts will enjoy her day in the sun. But I look forward to the trial. Not that of Alex Rodriguez: I doubt anything he did will interest a prosecutor. And certainly not the tawdry matter involving the pitiable Barry Bonds. No, I?m looking forward to the day when reporter Selena Roberts gets to squirm on the hard wooden chair in the federal courtroom. I?m getting the sense that the federal judge presiding in this matter will not be pleased by this latest leak. I?m also guessing that the federal prosecutor to whom this judge will likely refer this leak problem will want to do his very best to impress the new federal administration. This is not the end of the matter.? Nor should it be. Roberts will be rewarded, another aspiring journalist looking for any edge is taking notes, and this cycle could thrive unabated like steroids in the ?90?s? unless some reporter is finally held accountable. Of course, to punish Roberts, and not the top dogs at Sports Illustrated would be wrong. It would be like scapegoating Alex Rodriguez or Barry Bonds while all the owners and Bud Selig remain unscathed. But don?t expect Sports Illustrated to get implicated with her should Roberts get subpoenaed, and choose not reveal her sources. Because the fields of baseball and sports journalism have far too much in common. ???????????- [1] Luckily their source came forward, and saved them from doing a possible bid. [2] Much is written that baseball?s long history of indelible records distinguish itself from other sports that receive far less of a media backlash from steroid use (see football). While there is certainly some truth to this, it is overstated. The problem isn?t so much the records in and of itself, it is the irrational guardians of those records ? the baseball media. This larger group is simply a different breed than the football media or basketball media. None of these records happened in a ?pure? era, only nostalgia purified and sanctified yesterday?s baseball heroes. The baseball media has a long history of seeking protection for its own child memories. (i.e. Roger Maris never took steroids, but that did not stop an asterisk). Charles Modiano or ?MODI? is a contributor to RealGM and regularly writes at Sports on My Mind, and can be reached at modi@cosellout.com