LA Times Publishes Excuses for Not Releasing Khalidi Video

NewsBusters ^ | October 31, 2008 | P.J. Gladnick

[PJ-Comix]

The Los Angeles Times is feeling the pressure over its decision to refuse to release the controversial Rashid Khalidi video in which Barack Obama is shown toasting the former PLO operative at an Israel-bashing dinner. Even though the Times has acknowledged it has received thousands of phone calls and e-mails calling for the release of the video it is holding of that dinner, it has acted like a player hogging the football, waiting for the time to run out in the game as the final seconds count down. Although they have yet to report on a protest about their refusal to release the Khalidi tape held right outside their own building as you can see in this video, the Times included their reasons for refusing to make it public in a story about the demands by John McCain and Sarah Palin to release it (emphasis mine):

[PJ-Comix]

If the Los Angeles Times can't release the video (and I don't really buy their excuse) then why can't they at least make a transcript of that video public?

[PJ-Comix]

PING!

[IMissPresidentReagan]

LATimes ruined Jack Ryan’s political career and private life by demanding publication of divorce papers...and ensured B. Hussein Obama was elected to the US Senate....Mr. Ryan needs to be screaming from the rooftops about the hypocrisy of the LATimes and their collusion with Obama.

[Red in Blue PA]

RESLEASE A TRANSCRIPT IF NOT THE VIDEO.

Absolutely no excuse not to do so.

[Travis McGee]

Would you trust a transcript released by the LAT? I wouldn't. Plus, we want to see if Obama is gripping and grinning and giving warm abrazos to these terrorists. A transcript won't reveal that important body language communication. Did he give his toasts to the terrorists in a wooden monotone, or with blazing eyes? That's why we need to see the tape.

[longtermmemmory]

The LA TIMES IS LYING PERIOD.

[KeyLargo]

Campaign Crawlers http://www.spectator.org/

Stop Believing Obama By Philip Klein on 5.12.08 @ 12:08AM

David Axelrod laughed.

We were in the spin room following last month's debate in Philadelphia, and I had just asked Barack Obama's chief strategist to respond to a statement made by a top Hamas adviser endorsing Obama's candidacy, and favorably comparing the young Illinois Senator to John F. Kennedy.

"I like John Kennedy too," Axelrod responded. "That's about the only thing we have in common with this gentleman from Hamas. We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it's flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps."

Just a few days later, Obama was asked, at a diner stopover, about Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas, and his response was, "I'm just going to eat my waffle."

Last week, Obama described it as a "smear" that John McCain, in response to a question, correctly noted that a spokesman for the terrorist group publicly expressed support for Obama. But on Friday, McCain was further vindicated when the Times of London reported that Obama adviser Robert Malley had to sever ties with the campaign, because the newspaper was about to report that the prominent critic of Israel had been regularly engaging in talks with Hamas.

The Obama campaign has suggested that Malley's role with the campaign was "informal." But this is the same campaign that tried to downplay Obama's 20-year relationship with Jeremiah Wright (who, among other incendiary remarks, referred to Israel as a "dirty word"). Why was there a need to sever ties if none really existed? And if Obama is so utterly opposed to dealing with Hamas, as he has stated publicly, then why would he have an adviser, even an "informal" one, who was doing just that?

THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN, Obama and his staffers have dismissed any scrutiny of his views on Israel with a blend of outrage and sarcasm, as if his record of support for Israel is so extensive, so undeniable, that anybody who raises doubts about his actual views is launching an inquisition.

But as is the case with most issues, Obama is such a blank slate, and has such a thin public record, that voters are forced to parse his statements, sift through his past, and examine those he chooses to associate with to get a better sense of his underlying philosophy. excerpt Philip Klein is a reporter for The American Spectator. http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/10/31/the-plos-professor

[RonDog]

Indexing RELATED (tagged with keyword "obamatape") threads:

• NEW VIDEO: "L.A. Times under Siege!"
  Citizens Demand Release of Obama/Khalidi Video (10/30/08)
  Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:44:40 PM · by RonDog · 43 replies · 1,559+ views

  www.popmodal.com ^ | October 30, 2008 | Jeffers Dodge

• Video from the L.A. Times Obama-Khalidi protest (today)
  Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:38:27 PM · by STARWISE · 23 replies · 583+ views

  Jewish Journal ^ | 10-30-08

• LA Times Freep Today 10-30-08- So much fun, we're do again tomorrow 10-31-08
  Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:28:31 PM · by RaginApache · 68 replies · 1,289+ views

  FreedomMarch.org ^ | 10-30-08 | Joe

• LA Times Protest (PUMA site)
  Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:00:54 PM · by BAW · 27 replies · 999+ views

  pumapac.org ^ | October 30, 2008 | murphy

[Long Island Pete]

More excuse from the LA Slimes...
It wasn’t my fault. Honest! I ran out of gas. I had a flat tire. I didn’t have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn’t my fault, I swear to God!”

[KarlInOhio]

If the LA Times had a video of Senator McCain at a speech by a known Klansman* and he applauded after it, the video would have been released a long time ago no matter what promises they made to the person who took the video or what presumed danger he was in.

*Other than the C-Span videos where McCain and Klan Kleagle Byrd are on the Senate floor together. They won't mention Sheets' past.

[scooby321]

LA Times how about the Arnold tape in 2006? Oh thats right he was a GOP candidate.

[GOPJ]

Bribes. Does the LA Times take bribes?

Well, not traditional bribes. If someone tried to bribe an editor or reporter they'd be thrown out of every newsroom in the United States.

But bribery doesn't always come in the form of cash.

But, if an editor or reporter has established “sources” who happen to be dems - backed up by the corrupt civil service workers like the ones who “checked out” Joe the Plumber - that's GOLD.

The coin of the realm: People on the inside who will talk to you. Insiders who will feed accurate information like the Pentagon papers, stats on private citizens - the stuff it would take months for a reporter to find on his own. Handed on a platter. And the price? Sometime the head of a Republican. Or an unsaid agreement not to look to closely at some things... don't want to offend “friends” and all...

The MSM’s love affair with the dems is bribery - paid with the coin that matters to ;journalist.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

[GOPJ]

Obama dumps those who stand up to him:

First is will be the reporters who don’t back him.

Then it will be the reporters who don’t say good things about him.

Then it will be anyone who doesn’t sing his praises.

Then it will be like living in North Korea ...

And finally, the MSM will understand Baghdad Bob. He was a man with a boot on his neck...

and they’ll feel sorry for themselves.

[theDentist]

Jim Newton andf Russ Stanton and the others at the LAT are simply Obama’s butt-boys, bending over for him in hopes he’ll remember the favor later.

[theDentist]

The LA Times reader’s representative is jamie.gold@latimes.com

She’s either got to get them to release it, resign in protest, or become their (bad word) and lose all integrity.

[Colofornian]

From the Newsbusters article: Very suspicious. So are you suggesting that, in addition to agreeing to not releasing the Khalidi tape you can't report on what you see there in more detail?

Yes. Such a simple statement, but one I haven't been hearing in the din to release the tapes & the LA Times fumbling over its weakest of excuses.

So, OK. They have some sort of sacred agreement not to release the tapes. There is major interest in the tapes. There'd be a mass rush to a reader-poor LA Times were they to provide daily series of detailed accounts of what's on the tapes (no journalist would make an agreement to get the tapes but not release details of the tapes).

But, no, the Times is telling its advertisers, "We don't want massive new numbers of readers. We'd rather have thousands cancel their subscriptions and thereby layoff more workers. Chicagoans must protect fellow Chicagoans at all costs."

The bare fact that the LA Times has not released additional details of what's on the tape since April, despite the intense media interest, is the tell tail sign of what's on it. Assume the worst. Both of what's on the tape and the lack of journalistic integrity of the Tank Times.

[OPS4]

Video from the L.A. Times Obama-Khalidi protest
http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/scenes_from_the_la_times_protest_20081030/

[Cinnamon Girl]

It is probably not the words, but the lack of words from Obama which is so incriminating. If he’s just sitting there, nodding in approval at what is being said, he will obviously appear to be in support of these anti-Israel nuts. And he won’t be able to claim he didn’t know what they were saying, as Hillary did when Suha gave a speech claiming the Jews were poisoning the arabs’ water.

[GOPJ]

Obama dumps those who stand up to him:

First is will be the reporters who don’t back him.

Then it will be the reporters who don’t say good things about him.

Then it will be anyone who doesn’t sing his praises.

And finally, the MSM will understand Baghdad Bob. He was a man with a boot on his neck...

and they’ll feel sorry for themselves.

[wardaddy]

I doubt it would make much difference now in only 36 hours news cycle....it could help maybe in south Florida

who knows....right now today is about the latest