Stop The Presses!

| 13 Comments

The McCain campaign’s latest attempt to portray the press as liberal puppets of Barack Obama—by painting the Los Angeles Times’s refusal to release a videotape of the senator at a farewell dinner in 2003 for Rashid Khalidi, the Palestinian scholar and advocate, as part of a vast left-wing conspiracy—is much ado about nothing.

McCain’s spokesman, Michael Goldfarb, accused the Times of “intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi.” Goldfarb went on to mention a potentially vote-altering moment wherein the tape could possiblyhave captured Obama’s reaction to a “hate speech”-filled poem recited at the dinner.

This “intentional suppression” has caused plenty of consternation in the blogosphere. Many writers saw the Times’s refusal as evidence of liberal bias; others were just confused by the paper’s intransigence.

Yesterday, the Times published an article explaining its decision to withhold the video. Here’s editor Russ Stanton:

The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it. The Times keeps its promises to its sources.

Stanton’s explanation is beyond plausible; in fact, such deals with sources are quite common in journalism. Anyone who has worked as a reporter has been given access to a document, allowed to take notes on that document and write a story based on those notes, but not allowed to publish or otherwise distribute the document. So unless we’re prepared to call Stanton a liar, there shouldn’t be any problem taking him at his word.

As Bill Sammon, deputy managing editor of FOX News’s Washington bureau, put it, had Peter Wallsten, the reporter who wrote the Times story based on the videotape, buckled under the demands of the McCain campaign, sources would have good reason to question his trustworthiness in the future. Sammon also notes:

A deal is a deal, even if it’s a dumb deal. Besides, there may be a perfectly legitimate reason for withholding the tape, such as the possibility that it contains footage that would compromise an unnamed source’s identity.

Furthermore, it’s not clear that the Times even still has the tape, but if it does, and it chose to break its promise, what exactly do the McCain folks expect to find? They talk of wanting to see Obama’s reaction to the poem, but do they really think the camera was just zeroed in on the senator all night long, waiting for him to do something suspicious? A terrorist fist-bump, perhaps? Watching with bated breath for a glimpse of the senator as he reacts to a controversial banquet speech is the essence of deliberate oversimplification.

What we do wish the Times had done is be as transparent as possible about how the story came about. Tell us what they can about the source’s motivations and why the editors agreed to grant anonymity and to the restrictions on the use of the tape. This would go a long way toward reassuring the rational public that there is no conspiracy here. For everyone else, it doesn’t matter what the Times does or says.

13 Comments

CJR is nothing more than a liberal mouthpiece.

Ms. McGinley's apologetic sarcasm conveniently bypasses the fact that the LA Times has given at least four different reasons for refusing to release the tape, the latest coming only after a full-court press from the blogosphere.

If Fox News were in possession of a tape of McCain attending a such a dinner, these "watchdogs" would be beside themselves in journalistic fervor, demanding its immediate release and speculating ad infinitum over its presumably nefarious content.

If indeed this video shows Obama toasting one Islamist terrorist or shaking hands with his domestic terrorist neighbors/partners/handlers/pals, criticism of his behavior hardly amounts to any "deliberate oversimplification"- at least not to educated grown-ups.

Hanging out with terrorists (foreign or domestic) is not an especially complicated issue. Either you do it, or you don't.

The only "oversimplification" afoot is the naive simplicity of those who choose to give the LA Times a free pass in order to give cover to the Obama campaign.

From the L.A. Times Code of Ethics

http://www.asne.org/ideas/codes/losangelestimes.htm

"An unnamed source should have a compelling reason for insisting on anonymity, such as fear of retaliation, and stories should state those reasons when they are relevant... ....Stories should identify sources as completely as possible consistent with the promise of anonymity. In particular, a source’s point of view and potential biases should be disclosed as fully as possible. For instance, “an advisor to Democratic members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee” is preferable to “a Congressional source.”

Oh PK, where have you been?

Once again, Padikiller proves to be a mouthpiece for the other end of his digestive system.

Blogsketball tactics aside, his "if-then" hypothesis for McCain dinner theater is as weak as the iced tea served at such convention hall affairs. So frequently do his rants rely on the ole' "...but if the story were completely different, then you just KNOW the CJR Daily staff would write about it, well, differently..."

Trouble is, comparative analysis becomes difficult when one report is cold reality and the other is an untestable fiction that never was. If Batman were real, you just KNOW he'd get his cowl handed to him by the first group of punks he crossed...prove me wrong.

Then he gets into a WHAT-IF hypothesis of what a video might show. Why not suggest it might show Obama dressed as a giant rabbit, or distractedly puzzling at a Rubik's cube while the band plays on...? Scandal!

PK doesn't seem to understand that this is a site for journalistic review, not speculative fiction.

Yesterday, the Times published an article explaining its decision to withhold the video.

EHHH, DEFCON 4 BULLSHIT ALERT, DEFCON 4 BULLSHIT ALERT

To be more precise, this was the fourth excuse that the LA Times gave for not releasing the tape.

Someday, that tape is going to see the light of day. And if it turns out that there was anything on that tape that might have turned the tide against Obama these last days before the election, God help the people who witheld it.

And you'll be there to make them sorry, right Carl?

BREAKING NEWS...

Tony Blair rats out Bush, and other criminals.

See report by Christopher Story, editor of International Currency Review:
">">http://worldreports.org/news/179_blair_has_rolled_over_to_avoid_arrest_and_jail">
">http://worldreports.org/news/179_blair_has_rolled_over_to_avoid_arrest_and_jail

I have to wonder if CJR or Padkiller or nearly any of the news media have read Khalidi's books or heard what he has said. The idea that he is a Palestinian scholar, and a leader of Palestinian rights as well as an professor of Arab studies does not mean that he is a terrorist. Nor does his disagreement with the U.S.'s handling of Palistine make him a hater of the U.S. Much of what he says would be agreed with by a majority of Israelis. I suggest, before we waste more time on the hypotheticals of this video we ask for direct proof that Obama's association with a fellow scholar whose insight would make him a better President is somehow an indication of wrong-doing. In short, why should this even be an issue?

Yeah, right.

Khalidi wasn't a PLO terrorist and Bill Ayers et ux were merely misunderstood meteorologists.

Another day in CJR-Land.

Abe Long obfuscates:

PK doesn't seem to understand that this is a site for journalistic review, not speculative fiction.

padikiller responds:

Abe, in the spirit of "journalistic review", how about dealing with the fact that I posted the relevant section from the LA Times "Code of Ethics" regarding the use of anonymous sources.

The paper has a clear, self-acknowledged duty to identify the source of the videotape as accurately as possible and to inform its readers of the terms of the deal it struck in it guarantee of anonymity.

Also, please deal with the fact that the Times has now provided its readers four different explanations for its failure to release the videotape.

If you're not going to address these points, hop off your high horse and drop the "journalistic review" shinola.

Seriously, does everyone who wants to see Israel bathed in fire not supporting Obama?

I wonder what Rahm Emanuel is going to say about the Obamessiah when Tel Aviv is nuked?

Pad, once again I ask you to reference direct evidence that Kahlidi is a terrorist. McCain obviously didn't think so, having given funds to the professor's political organization. And in what sense is Bill Ayres even relevant to a discussion of Kahlidi? Do you also propose that all of the students of these two professors are tainted and should be investigated? They did, after all, have more contact with Kahlidi and Ayres than Obama, and judging by your arguments association is guilt.

Whether or not Kahlidi is a terrorist is moot; obviously the Times considered the association newsworthy, otherwise it would not have run the story. To now insist it is not newsworthy is, well... pretty blatant hypocrisy.

Note to CJR editors: you might want to occasionally come down on the side of your ideological opponents, if just for appearances' sake. At least that might give the pretense of objectivity, or a plausible rationale for denying bias. As it is, you are utterly predictable ideologues, your opinions based solely on politics. You could train a monkey to do that.

This is what you call journalism?

Leave a comment

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by published on October 30, 2008 3:32 PM.

Rally Killer was the previous entry in this blog.

But Wait! There's More! is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.