I Rise To Defend The LA Times (Sort Of) [incl. Rashid Khalidi]

With Israel in the news, Roger Simon has a question:

Why Is the L.A. Times Burying the Obama/Khalidi Tape?

Lest you have forgotten, here is the backstory:

Rashid Khalidi — a Palestinian-American historian known for his strong pro-Palestinian opinions — is currently the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia and director of that university’s Middle East Institute. After Khalidi received this Columbia appointment in 2003, a farewell dinner party was held in his honor in Chicago. A videotape was made of that party where many good things were said about the Palestinian cause and many bad things about Israel. Then Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama was in attendance, as were, some say, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

That tape, as Leon DeWinter reminded us, was given at some point by an unknown person to Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times. Wallsten then reported on some of its contents in a brief LAT article of April 10, 2008 titled “Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama.”

Let’s note the timing - as of early April 2008 the Pennsylvania was still ahead of us and Hillary supporters were clinging bitterly to the notion that their gal could prevail. I would guess that the source for the tape was a loyal Democrat and Hillary supporter hoping to throw sand in the gears of the Obama machine.

So why is the LA Times sitting on the tape today? Let’s cut to Mr. Simon:

In response to a charge of suppression of information by the McCain campaign, the paper’s editor Russ Stanton said:

“The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it. The Times keeps its promises to sources.”

Was this an oral promise made by the paper or by the reporter? Or was there a written agreement, as would be more proper and normal in such circumstances? The Times has not told us, nor have they produced a written agreement of any sort, even without the source’s name. We don’t know either whether a transcription is proscribed.

I assume the paper is happy to stay in the tank for Obama. However, it is possible, even likely, that the tape was filmed by an amateur whose identity could easily be guessed by those in the know (maybe his table-mates are readily identifiable; maybe table chatter is picked up which would identify the filmer.)

If the LA Times was interested in problem solving they could release a transcript. Lingering concerns about credibility (if any!) could be solved by inviting in another news source or two (Fox and the WSJ?) to aid in the transcription.

I can believe that releasing the raw tape would present their source with a problem; if the LA Times was truly interested in advancing the news side of this, a transcript would be the solution.

I am not holding my breath.

See more on this Topic
George Washington University’s Failure to Remove MESA from Its Middle East Studies Program Shows a Continued Tolerance for the Promotion of Terrorism
One Columbia Professor Touted in a Federal Grant Application Gave a Talk Called ‘On Zionism and Jewish Supremacy’