The Atlantic - Latest Comments in The L.A. Times tape

Re: The L.A. Times tape

Whitey — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:34:15 -0000

How did it become public that they had this tape? Why would they let it see the light of day?

Re: The L.A. Times tape

CB — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:49:42 -0000

The bottom line is that the LA Times, as well as every other major media outlet, save for Fox, has a liberal leaning. What is on the tape might sway many last-minute voters. So kudos to the liberal media for getting Sen. Obama elected.

Now, I know all of you will email Helen E. Jones-Kelly, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services Director, for illegally choosing to "investigate" Joe the plumber. Talk about a blatant misuse of power. Yes, she is a Democrat, appointed by a Democratic governor. I hope Joe sues both of their asses for unlawful search.

While I understand the historical implications of electing Sen. Obama, of which I am thrilled, I am looking forward to we people of color not being able to fall back on the victimology of race. We can no longer say that we live in a racist nation.

So, for that, I am thankful.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

Tessa — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:50:30 -0000

What I don't understand is why you would ever cut a deal like that.

I can think of a few good reasons. What if the person who delivered the tape is concerned about being sued? What if this person obtained the tape through a third party that for some reason would have a legitimate reason to sue him? Or maybe there's no legitimate reason to be sued, but the source is worried just the same because a decent defense costs money, and the source is broke and can't afford to be sued. Who knows, but it's not that impossible to imagine a few scenarios in which a source would not want the tape released.

Bottom-line, you either think the L.A. Times is being honest, or you think they're sitting on a story. While I can be just as much a cynic as the next person, I think this time I'll take them at their word. Their explanations do make sense if you accept the premise: the source doesn't want the tapes released.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

Emma — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:26:29 -0000

What I don't get is how this is an issue at all. I mean, Professor Khalidi is a well-respected and renowned academic, not even a former-terrorist like Ayers.

And besides, if the McCain campaign is going to go after Obama's associates, they might want to vet who they pick (though clearly this is not their strong point). The International Republican Institute, under the leadership of John McCain, granted to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies close to half a million dollars. Are they saying that the IRI gave terrorists a cool half mil?

Re: The L.A. Times tape

Steve — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:13:55 -0000

For the curious, the April 2008 LA Times story is here.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

Rainy — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:02:46 -0000

I need to point out that Rashid Khalidi is not some radical terrorist. He is a respected Middle Eastern studies professor. He is a Christian and he was born in New York. I would suggest that he find a lawyer and sue anybody who calls him a terrorist or a radical, because it's straight up slander.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

socctty — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:43:28 -0000

I should say that the only articles I have seen are articles about the fact that the tape hasn't been released. I haven't seen the actual LA Times article on the dinner itself, and I'd be interested in reading it.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

Joel — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:15:19 -0000

Just look at the declining circulation numbers and plummeting advertising revenue and you might see why the LAT might want to stir a "controversy" about this tape.. Maybe I'm just too cynical.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

socctty — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:12:43 -0000

What gets me about the tape is that I haven't seen an article about it. That probably means there's nothing interesting on the tape, but then again, why ask for it not to be released if that's the case?

Like you said, I don't really see the point of receiving the tape if you aren't going to do a story on the tape.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

tjm — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:09:22 -0000

Katherine is right. I'm a reporter, formerly at the LAT although I had nothing to do with this piece (which, I thought at the time, was kind of a sloppy semi-hit piece). The short answer is you make the best deal you can and being able to see the tape rather than rely on someone's description of the event is a far, far better deal for the reader. This happens all the time. Think about McCain's medical records. If you were reporting on his health you would of course want to have possession of the records. But the campaign will only allow them to be viewed under stupidly restrictive conditions. Would the best deal for the reader here be refusing to accept the conditions and thereby pass on the potential story? No. Could you call a bunch of people and write the story? Yeah, but you would run the risk of writing a story that was not just ill-informed, but utterly wrong.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

Katherine — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:37:12 -0000

Also, if you were a reporter & relied on phone calls to witnesses (some of whom would probably insist on anonymity) when video evidence was available, you'd be doing a lousy job. Video evidence is more reliable verification for your article than witness accounts. Not looking at it to safe yourself some trouble, at risk of writing a less accurate story, is lousy journalistic practice.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

Katherine — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:34:05 -0000

This is totally overblown. Newspapers often withhold their primary sources even when their source does NOT make doing so a condition of the leak, just to have an exclusive--often you can get multiple stories out of one document. This drives me totally CRAZY, in the context of, e.g., newspaper reporters withholding government documents about torture that they describe in their articles, so that they can use them in later articles or in their books. But, if the source will only give you the documents on that condition, it can be legitimate & worth it (assuming, of course, that there are no authenticity concerns). Some great, newsworthy stories are products of documents that a reporter was allowed to read but not keep, or keep but not publicly release. In this case, the story is less compelling & newsworthy & worth cutting deals with a source about, but newspapers cut worse deals with anonymous sources, and fail to disclose primary source documents or videos to the public for less justifiable reasons, ALL THE TIME.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

Nathan Hale — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:53:43 -0000

The problem with Emma's suggestion is that Khalidi is an accomplished professor, a supporter of the peace process and NOT a terrorist sympathizer. Sliming an honest man for political gain is a McCain tactic -- it has not been (thankfully) an Obama tactic.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

emma — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:46:16 -0000

I don't get this at all. John McCain has much deeper ties to this man. Obama was in a room with him, but John McCain gave him money. If this guy is so bad, Obama "paling around with him" is nothing compared to McCain funding him. If I were Obama I would put up an ad about John McCain "finding terrorism" and then see what the old fart does.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

anon — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:44:32 -0000

this is starting to feel like the whole cia leak thing again... except of course dick cheney and karl rove were involved in that.

and to whoever asked why this is coming up now, mccain's aide (tucker bounds i think) said, "it's a week before the election and we want to win."

yikes.

anyone catch mccain admit to larry king that obama's NOT a socialist last night? womp womp womp.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

Stacy — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:38:40 -0000

"No. The issue is why would someone give the tape ONLY to the LA Times under terms that they not use it?"

The LA Times DID use the tape. They used it to write a piece in April. I find nothing strange about this reporter having anonymous source.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

Steve — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:35:26 -0000

This is not very complicated at all. It's entirely normal for a journalist to write about what happened at an event based upon what a source tells him. If he has a videotape he can watch to verify that the source is correct, of course he's going to watch it, whether or not he gets to release the tape himself.

Imagine if, instead of giving the tape to the reporter on the condition that he not release it, the source simply allowed the reporter to watch the tape but not keep a copy. Exact same result - story gets published, no tape to release - but for some reason there's no hissy fit in this scenario.

Why ask the source for the tape if you're not going to release it? Because it helps you verify your reporting, duh. Like I said, not complicated.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

AltonDarwin — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:24:19 -0000

I think this is possibly a net negative for McCain. The mystery of the tape ain't good for Obama, but lacking any damning evidence, the media has turned to McCain's pet committee FUNDING the "terrorist sympathizer" Professor Khalidi to the tune of nearly one million dollars.

Unlike some of McCain's pot-kettle moments, this one has teeth PRECISELY BECAUSE the media doesn't have access to the "evidence" against Obama. Even Larry King swatted down McCain's insinuations last night.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

otey — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:00:51 -0000

No. The issue is why would someone give the tape ONLY to the LA Times under terms that they not use it?

If that's what happened, what was the point of giving the tape to the newpaper in the first place?

There's more to this than has been reported. It doesn't make sense,

Re: The L.A. Times tape

Nathan Hale — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:00:49 -0000

But you guys don't get it. Obama is on the tape. With. A. Palestinian-American. Professor. How outrageous! And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Some people say that during his trip to Iraq and the Middle East this summer, Obama actually met with Arabs and Muslims. Rumor has it that he might have seen Muslims when he visited Kenya in 1990s. And the media is suppressing all of this. This has got to be the biggest cover-up since the moon landing.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

moppet — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:41:35 -0000

I know that the timing of this request for the tape should not affect my belief in the validity of the request, but my first thought was, yeah, the McCain campaign is asking for it NOW...why weren't they worried about it in April? In fairness, maybe they were and we just didn't hear about it because the Democratic primary was still going on.

I hope the LA Times is putting a squeeze on their original source to allow them to release the tape.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

Stacy — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:40:55 -0000

The LA Times probably thought they were doing their duty by acquiring the tape and writing about it. How were they supposed to know that McCain would be 8 points down in the beginning of November and acting pathetically.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

Stacy — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:29:11 -0000

"The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the Obama campaign wants to create some buzz about the tape, only to have it finally released and to have it be totally boring, with no smoking gun."

Nah. With how much Obama is leading in all the battleground states, I'm sure they'd just as rather have the tape not exist. I don't really agree with TNC on this one. If the LA Times was trying to suppress anything, they simply never would have written the story. I don't see any problem with them taking the tape under those circumstances. But then again, I'm not a journalist. This whole thing is silly.

Re: The L.A. Times tape

Persia — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:18:42 -0000

Why would you take it and run a story with it in the first place? Like Sarah Palin, "No" is always an option. They had to know they'd get tons of people yelling for the tape's release. Why invite the trouble, just to serve a 'news' story that's dubious at best?

Re: The L.A. Times tape

Charlie — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:16:00 -0000

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the Obama campaign wants to create some buzz about the tape, only to have it finally released and to have it be totally boring, with no smoking gun.