The L.A. Times wrote and published an article about the CONTENTS of this meeting, as revealed on the tape. Let's assume. even if it is a lie, that the L.A. Times received the tape under a promise of "confidentiality." It is self-evident that the Times did not promise to hide the CONTENTS of the tape.
In a trial, there is a concept called "opening the door." When an opposing counsel goes into an area that is otherwise privileged, then you can go after the same thing. Anyone has a right to demand of the Times that they produce a transcript of the whole tape. That much is outside of "confidentiality" because the Times itself has "opened the door."
Given the recent history of the Times, there will still be a question of whether the transcript is honest and complete. Recall the 17 minutes missing (plus a whole lot of profanity and obscenity deleted) from the Nixon Watergate tapes. But the wrinkle I have just stated has, so far, been missed by all other commentators.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Brides from a War Long Ago"
The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America's Owner's Manual, here.
This smells more like the LA SLimes are not releasing the tape because of the gross missmatch between the article last spring and the actual obscene nature of the video revelations. The Slimes are openly in the tank for Obama and the article was very colorless, wimpy even. The video may be very volatile and expose just how badly the Slimes are mischaracterizing the video with the bland article.