Why did someone give the Times a tape and then ask them not to release it. The BS meter just topped out.
Why give the tape to a news organization in April 2008?
1) Tape was to be used to damage BHO in Dem primary;
2) Use of tape was conditional...no release because if BHO wins primary then he will be damaged beyond reparation for the general election.
It’s not unusual for a source to give information to a journalist “on background” (I am a journalist, by the way), which means you can use the information as the basis for your own reporting, but you can’t quote from the information itself.
But here’s the problem with the Times’s explanation: You don’t have to agree to this restriction when the source offers it. You can say, “No, either it’s on the record or don’t give it to me.” If you accept information on backgroud, it’s usually because you intend to do your own reporting, and the background information tells you where to look.
In this case, that would presumably mean they go and talk to people who were at the dinner and ask them what they heard Obama and others say. The video would let them know if the person answered their question accurately.
Has the Times done any such reporting? Not that I’m aware of. And if not, what would be the reason for accepting the video on background?
It doesn’t make any sense.
Happens pretty often, but the Times should not have agreed to it in a matter like this.
Furthermore, at this point I would break an agreement like that. The right to know outweighs the fact I would be burning a bridge.
Unless of course the Times doesn’t want it to get out for political reasons...
Br'er Rabbit gambit? or it's really, really bad for Obama.