One possible reason TO release the tape: in absence of it, people are free to make up whatever crazy rumor they want. One anonymous “source” who claims to have seen the tape says it depicts Obama outright saying that Israelis are committing genocide, and stuff like that.
That’s a consideration, but again, when a paper breaks its word, it can have a chilling effect on future sources. Of course you can make a very fair case that news outlets rely much too heavily on protected sources in this post-Watergate era, but that’s a mostly separate issue.
I’ll believe that when the “whitey” tape turns up.
So is Obama a terrorist again? I thought that was last week. Isn’t he supposed to be a socialist at the beginning of the wee, and then a Marxist towards the end? Who moved us back to terrorist?
Could fox news maybe post a banner or something that contains the “smear o’ the day” so right thinking people can keep up?
Daylight Saving Time ends this week. Or are you asserting that McCain’s campaign strategy is being formulated by the Sphinx? Because I’ll need a cite before I believe anybody is coming up with a strategy here.
Na, It’ll be:
“Senator Obama is a white, out-of-touch grumpy old man with health problems.”
And he’s married to a secessionist!
The LA Times has pretty clearly said that Obama is not shown engaging in any such talk on the tape (and it sounds absurdly out of character anyway).
I think the smear artists are counting on the LAT honoring its ethical obligations and not releasing the tape. It allows them to throw this kind of slime out there and puts Obama in the position of having to prove a negative without any access to he tape.
Incidentally, the suggestion that Obama should call on the LA Times to violate an ethical obligation is asinine in itself.
I am terrified this garbage will work, though.
This is the kind of illogic that drives conspiratorial thoughts. If there is little evidence, then any evidence is the tip of the iceberg. If there is no evidence, then there is a coverup, which is itself evidence. The whipsaw behavior of the right blogosphere is this sort of thing- they are so hungry for anything that anything becomes something, even if it is nothing.
It’s not any different than the lizard-people or the 9-11 truthers. It’s exactly the same.
I don’t remember this “doing vague deals with spokespeople of terrorist groups” being such a huge issue when Gerry Adams was being welcomed to the White House every St Patrick’s Day from 1995 to 2004.
- Yes, journalists typically go to jail and get fined before breaking these sorts of promises, including to Republicans. Recall Scooter Libby incident. There is no danger of the LA Times being in such a position anytime soon.
- It would be a big bust because the Times has reviewed it and described it in detail.
- No, they should keep their promise. They would be liable for copyright infringement if they did release it. Obama is one day soon going to be President. Early video (5 years) ago will have at minimum historical value. Does the times want to be liable for zillions of copies floating about, destroying any original sale value? I think not.
I’m the opposite. I think the tape really could show Obama toasting the PLO while standing on top of a pile of dead Jews, but it wouldn’t matter — nobody believes McCain any more. This is … how many times he’s tried to associate Obama with terrorists? I’ve lost count. It’s old news. Anybody who was going to jump ship for McCain based on innuendo would already have done so.
So why wasn’t he invited back after 2004? :dubious: Oh yeah, Northern Ireland stopped being even REMOTELY interesting. And thank God and reasonable people for it!
The VIDEO of him clapping at anti-Israeli rants would burn down the Jewish vote.
I read the thread, but I missed the part that indicates that Obama clapped at “anti-Israeli rants.” Can you point me to the part of the LA Times reporting that states this?
Journalists get information “off the record” somewhat frequently (more or less depending on the policies of their organization and their beat). “Off the record” is accepted to mean, in a very basic sense, “you can’t print this”. It’s useful for the journalists because they use that to check things out, even if they can’t ever release that information.
Example: If the tape of Palin’s church had been handed to a paper with the caveat that they couldn’t release it (and assuming it wasn’t available anywhere else), the paper could have watched it, then decided whether it was newsworthy, then sent a reporter to the church to check it out. All without releasing the tape. Useful? Definitely.
There is a fair use exemption for news reporting. It would be up to a judge how the video’s release affected the value, but it’s certainly not an open and shut case.
What’s a far more interesting question to me is whether the paper should have accepted the tape with the “no-distribution” restriction in the first place. Just as there’s a danger with burning your sources that nobody’ll talk to you, there’s a danger with accepting too much information off the record so that any time anyone has anything controversial to say, they’ll only tell you if you promise to not print it.
You gotta put on your thinking cap! No, not that one, this shiny one! Make sure the folds are aligned with magnetic north, to keep out the telepathic rays. Ready? OK, its obvious that the *LA Times is protecting Obama, because LA is the gay and the Hollywood. Therefore, it follows that they are protecting him from something, something serious, like a secret membership in the Black Aryan Nation. * Quod errata demonstrum.
It didn’t. That’ the point.
And your source for suspecting Obama did, indeed, clap at some “anti-Israeli rants” is . . . ?
checks forum name
Never mind. Can’t say it here.
You can say “Hannity” here.