The Los Angeles Times is standing on what it calls journalistic integrity - a promise made to its source - in refusing to release a 2003 videotape of Barack Obama fulsomely praising a Palestinian apologist for armed "resistance" against Israel.
Pardon our skepticism.
The paper, which has endorsed Obama, said it obtained the tape from "a confidential source" who demanded "that we not release it."
But what of the public's right to know?
Does anyone seriously believe that, as John McCain said yesterday, "if there was a tape with me and Sarah Palin and some neo-Nazi . . . you think that that tape wouldn't be made public?"
In its defense, the paper says that it published "a detailed account" of the videotape back in April.
True enough - although the paper also won't release a full transcript.
The tape shows Obama, then an Illinois legislator, speaking at a dinner hosted by Arab-Americans for Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian activist and professor who was headed for Columbia University.
Who is Khalidi, and why should Americans be concerned about Obama's relationship with him? See Gabriel Schoenfeld's profile of the activist-scholar on the opposite page.
On the tape, Obama says his many dinners with Khalidi have been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases," and adds: "For that reason, I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation."
Such words aren't likely to reassure supporters of Israel - indeed, as the Times itself reported, it explains why Palestinian partisans believe that Obama "is . . . receptive to their cause."
The Obama campaign yesterday insisted that its candidate "has been clear that Rashid Khalidi is not an adviser to him or his campaign and that he does not share Khalidi's views."
But when did that become "clear"?
Shouldn't responsible journalists be asking that question?
Read it all here.
No comments:
Post a Comment