John, so the reporter should not have accepted the tape at all, written no story, and not described the party scene in his story about Obama's ties to Palestine-supporters?
I think the reporter did the responsible thing with the information he was able to gather.
IF the journalist and the news organization he works for cares about their credibility, then under those conditions, no, it would not have been wise for them to accept a video tape and write about the contents of it, and then have no ability to provide proof to other parties of such a tape. We have no way of knowing if they are lying or not. Suppose Becky if any journalist could write about a video tape stating all kinds of derogatory things about a famous figure in it, but then never release the tape, should anyone believe the story? Is there any mechanism at all for corroboration if a journalist refuses to provide proof of his accusations? The answer would be no, there isn't, and anyone could just easily lie about what they have or don't have. If the journalist and the news organization does not care about their credibility, then yes, they should publish the story. But, as I said I find it hard to believe they are telling the truth that their source provided them a video-tape on the condition they not release it. That makes no rational sense to me.