Report from the LA Times Protest - Times Says 'Releasing the Video Might Put the Source in Jeopardy'

LittleGreenFootballs ^ | 10/30/2008 | Charles Johnson

[mojito]

LGF reader ‘cblesz’ went to the protest at the LA Times building this morning, and reports that there were about 150 people there — and that LA Times staffers were watching from the windows, smirking and laughing at the protesters.

UPDATE at 10/30/08 12:03:21 pm:

The Times has settled on their excuse now; another reader forwarded the email he received from Gary Weitman, spokesman for the Times’ parent company Tribune:

Mr. Smith,

I’m sorry you feel this way. I understand this may be frustrating to you.

Allow me to explain further. Protecting confidential sources and standing by agreements made in order to get information is a cornerstone of good fundamental journalism, and a free press. If we break an agreement with a source, we risk other sources not coming forward with information vital to the public. In this case, the tape was written about extensively and only came to light because the LA Times made a promise not to publish it or reveal its source. That promise means not publishing the tape even to a high level conservative, however turstworthy that person may be.

Despite the public pressure, it is important that the LA Times honor its agreement.

Thanks,

Gary Weitman

“Now go away and stop bothering us, peon,” he didn’t add. But he might as well have.

I’m not going to mince words: I don’t believe the LA Times is telling the truth when they say they had an agreement with their source not to reveal the tape.

UPDATE at 10/30/08 12:38:36 pm:

And yet another version of the excuse, also from Weitman (courtesy of LGF reader ‘jbolty’):

I completely agree about the role of the press being a watchdog on government abuse. The LA Times, as you know, brought this story to light in the first place and described what was going on on the tape. The reporter on the story has written extensively about Barack Obama’s relationship to the Khalidi family. The reporter agreed with his source not to release the tape in return for getting acess to it.

The Times has made it clear (last night online and in today’s newspaper) that it will honor that agreement. That is what you’d want, I would think: protection of a source in return for getting the underlying information. To break that agreement might put the source of the tape in jeopardy. Honoring the agreement allows the newspaper to continue to get information from other sources and assures those sources of information that they can come forward confidentially.

Releasing the video would “put the source in jeopardy?” Is this an admission that there’s something damaging on the tape?

UPDATE at 10/30/08 12:56:45 pm:

Pictures and video from the protest at Mere Rhetoric.

[mojito]

Releasing the video would “put the source in jeopardy?” Is this an admission that there’s something damaging on the tape?

Sound like it to me. Sounds like something very damaging is on the tape.

[MeanWestTexan]

Occupy the lobby. Don’t let anyone out or in.

[mwilli20]

Put the source in jeopardy?

What kind of people was Obama hanging around with that somebody would be in jeopardy about a freaking tape???

McCain, please pounce on that!!!

[randita]

The source is Hillary, methinks.

[Stepan12]

Sounds like a load of scheiss unsin from the L.A. Times to me.

[rbbeachkid]

“LA Times staffers were watching from the windows, smirking and laughing at the protesters.”

________________________

And the protesters will smirk and laugh when they announce the next round of layoffs form the LATimes. :)

[library user]

...we risk other sources not coming forward with information vital to the public.

But, Gary, you are NOT making the tape public, that's the whole f-ing problem!

[Travis McGee]

To break that agreement might put the source of the tape in jeopardy.

Translation from Newspeak to English: "Those crazy muslims would cut his head off."

[manc]

sounds like that who ever made the video went under cover and is scared for the lives

Now the question is

what on earth was going on there and what unsavoury people were there

Surely the times could figure a way of leaking this info without causing any one their life

providing it is true which I have my doubts

[Travis McGee]

C8

[MuttTheHoople]

Since when did they care about putting a source in jeopardy? If they found McCain hid Josef Mengele, they’d expose that tape.

[muawiyah]

Mr. Zell remains unmoved by arguments that failure to release his tape might end the lives of millions of his fellow Jews.

[Uncle Miltie]

"To break that agreement might put the source of the tape in jeopardy."

What, the L.A. Times expects Obama's Brown Shirts to physically attack the source?

Wouldn't that expectation itself be news?

[ladyvet]

[mware]

In jeopardy

WTH, so the LA Times is willing to admit that Obama associates with people who might harm their source??

[Chet 99]

Will the Sheeple even care? They don’t seem to care one wit about Ayers or Wright.

[Toespi]

So let’s put the nation at risk........better 3000 dead than 1 dead liberal, right?

[ikka]

Don’t release the tape then. Release the full transcript!

[Maverick68]

IF this all important video is stifled by the Times and IF Obama is elected President, WHEN he does something foolish to harm this country, these idiots need to be the target of millions of Patriots with torches and pitchforks...

[Batman11]

So...the democratic nominee and his followers are so ruthless that someone has to fear for their safety if they cross him? This is the person that they want to be our President? If this is true, then that concept alone is just as damaging, and damning, as whatever is said on this video and should have the same effect on the electorate.