The legal reason: California is a 2-party recording state. All parties have to consent to recording. ABC could become liable for distributing it further.
I think there are exceptions, if someone is is breaking the law. But, I think you'd be hard-pressed to claim Begley and Hemingway were breaking any law.
Yes, the similarity to Donald Sterling's case is striking, but my understanding is he was aware he was being recorded. I don't know what the law says about unauthorized disclosure, though.
Of course, the real reason for spiking this story is the disclosure doesn't fit their agenda. If it had been exposing someone on the other side of the political spectrum, the lawyers would have claimed they were "serving the public interest".
“The legal reason: California is a 2-party recording state. All parties have to consent to recording. ABC could become liable for distributing it further.”
The statute is about evesdropping, not precisely aimed at a conversation where a participant is doing the recording , although its been interpreted that way by the courts.
I did see that there is a limitation, that if you’re recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you’re recording may or may not have “an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation,” and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances.
So - O’Keefe has an argument that the restaurant setting nullifies the privacy expectation.