About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 12:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Done.



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Since we know that this tape exhonerates Obama, I am sure all his supporters will urge the tape's release.



Post 2

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 12:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Unless ye seen the tape, ye DON'T know - ye merely presume...



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 12:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Either way, if it's innocuous, no reason to hide it. If it isn't, we ought to know. Rational people can make up their own minds either way, as long as the tape is kept hidden, no one has the ability to effectively judge. The fact the L.A. Times is with-holding the tape accomplishes two things that I know of:

1) A loss of credibility for the L.A. Times for its lack of transparency

2) A loss of credibility for the Obama campaign for not asking the Times to release it





Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 12:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is the April LA Times story:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story

It seems clear to me where Obama's sympathies are but he's very very good at covering them up. As Khalidi himself is quoted:

"He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel -- a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago's large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.
"

Obama is so good at these "requirements" to win elections. Like raising money....
I see the possibility of impeachment....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

(Edited by Mike Erickson on 10/29, 2:16pm)




Post 5

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 2:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is the link to cut & paste so you can email people who care:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/29/contact-los-angeles-holding-obama-khalidi-videotape/

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/29/contact-los-angeles-holding-obama-khalidi-videotape/



Post 6

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 2:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Okay, I added the links. I use Mozilla and I don't know the easy way to add links other than copy and paste them. IE uses more of my old PC's resources so I don't use it very often.

I emailed my request to the LA Times to release the video.
(Edited by Mike Erickson on 10/29, 2:31pm)




Post 7

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 6:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

John McCain says he's sure The Los Angeles Times would be quick to produce a tape that purported to show him or his running mate at a neo-Nazi event, so he can't understand why it won't show Barack Obama in the company of a former PLO mouthpiece.

Whomever you support, prompting the times to reveal the truth is the objective thing to do.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 9:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Times is in a tough spot either way, but I'm proud it isn't releasing film from a source who gave them the tape on the condition that in not be made public. The reporter did a good job describing what's on the tape in his April story, which I encourage you to re-read. The Times shouldn't violate an agreement with a source.



Post 9

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 9:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I hadn't heard that. Do you have a source? Thanks.



Post 10

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 10:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is from yesterday's paper:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,5458024.story

And here's the original article from April:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,5826085.story



Post 11

Thursday, October 30, 2008 - 7:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Publishing the video might, by the camera angle, reveal who shot it.  Thus I propose a compromise: release an unedited transcript with some neutral parties (judges, CPAs, notaries) to attest to its completeness and accuracy.  The photographer's identity will be protected and, if the Times at this late date says that was against the agreement, too, but they forgot to mention it til now, we'll know they're lying.




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Thursday, October 30, 2008 - 8:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm sorry but I don't believe that crap. For one the original article made no mention of honoring a source's wishes to not release the video. Number two why would such a source request the video not be published? For what reason?

This is all the original article says of the tape:

"The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times."

No mention of a "source" or even a "source's wishes it not be released".

If the tables were turned and this was about John McCain, the tape would have been released to the public from day one.





Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Thursday, October 30, 2008 - 8:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The video isn't public property. It's the property of the source, who gets to decide who sees it and under what conditions. The Times agreed to those conditions in order to describe the film in an article that anyone may read.



Post 14

Thursday, October 30, 2008 - 9:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No problem here.  "Obtained" is standard news terminology for "leaked" or "gotten from an anonymous source."  They had no reason until this week to say anything more.

The damage is done.  This has reminded everyone, once more, that Obama has a lot to hide.  He'll still win, but he'll be the first president to start his administration already as discredited as Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Clinton were at their respective nadirs.  Johnson is an especially good parallel, since they both got to the top by playing to people's fatuities, making each voter and each political figure they dealt with think "with all these new powers, he's going to govern just the way I want and betray just the people I want to see betrayed."  The difference is that Johnson got in almost 2 years of a politically successful presidency (from the time he took office until the Vietnam war and the Watts riots in the summer of 65) before everything fell in around him.




Post 15

Thursday, October 30, 2008 - 10:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Becky:

The video isn't public property. It's the property of the source, who gets to decide who sees it and under what conditions. The Times agreed to those conditions in order to describe the film in an article that anyone may read.


There's only one small problem Becky, you're assuming the L.A. Times is telling the truth. As I said, it's not credible that a source would release a video-tape to the L.A. Times on the condition this video not be released. Why would someone do that? All the contents of this video was written in a news periodical and there was no mention of a "source" or its "conditions". You can easily play the tape while blurring out individuals that wish to remain anonymous. There is no rational reason for a source to make such a request while entrusting someone else with a video of himself, if indeed the source is on the video. And if they don't want to release the video, why believe anything that they wrote then? Why did a journalist accept a source material he knew he couldn't reproduce to back up his claims? At least that's considered incompetent and irresponsible journalism.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Thursday, October 30, 2008 - 10:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
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.



Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Thursday, October 30, 2008 - 11:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Once again, I see no problem with the questions you raise in #15.  Like any anonymous source, whoever handed the video over was willing to let the word out but not not to let his name out.  What the source wants to keep secret is who he is, not what anyone else at the event said.

Reporters use anonymous sources or leaked data regularly.  The fact that a reporter, scholar or scientist has established a career and is publishing in a reputable outlet (that last is a bit iffy in this case) is enough to create a presumption of accuracy.  Saying "well, I don't believe it," however sincerely and accurately, isn't enough to overcome that presumption.




Post 18

Thursday, October 30, 2008 - 1:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What occurs to me is that McCain-Palin might get the most value out of all of this by the tape NOT being released. It might not have anything very damaging on it at all, but the withholding of it is tantalizing and triggers the worst in the imagination. Obama has always been controlled in his public appearances and I doubt that he did much that would be damaging - I'm sure he was, as always, quite "nuanced."




Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Thursday, October 30, 2008 - 1:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Becky:

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.



Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.