Sign up for The Media Today, CJRâs daily newsletter.
The McCain campaignâs latest attempt to portray the press as liberal puppets of Barack Obamaâby painting the Los Angeles Timesâs refusal to release a videotape of the senator at a farewell dinner in 2003 for Rashid Khalidi, the Palestinian scholar and advocate, as part of a vast left-wing conspiracyâis much ado about nothing.
McCainâs spokesman, Michael Goldfarb, accused the Times of âintentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi.â Goldfarb went on to mention a potentially vote-altering moment wherein the tape could possiblyhave captured Obamaâs reaction to a âhate speechâ-filled poem recited at the dinner.
This âintentional suppressionâ has caused plenty of consternation in the blogosphere. Many writers saw the Timesâs refusal as evidence of liberal bias; others were just confused by the paperâs intransigence.
Yesterday, the Times published an article explaining its decision to withhold the video. Hereâs editor Russ Stanton:
The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it. The Times keeps its promises to its sources.
Stantonâs explanation is beyond plausible; in fact, such deals with sources are quite common in journalism. Anyone who has worked as a reporter has been given access to a document, allowed to take notes on that document and write a story based on those notes, but not allowed to publish or otherwise distribute the document. So unless weâre prepared to call Stanton a liar, there shouldnât be any problem taking him at his word.
As Bill Sammon, deputy managing editor of FOX Newsâs Washington bureau, put it, had Peter Wallsten, the reporter who wrote the Times story based on the videotape, buckled under the demands of the McCain campaign, sources would have good reason to question his trustworthiness in the future. Sammon also notes:
A deal is a deal, even if itâs a dumb deal. Besides, there may be a perfectly legitimate reason for withholding the tape, such as the possibility that it contains footage that would compromise an unnamed sourceâs identity.
Furthermore, itâs not clear that the Times even still has the tape, but if it does, and it chose to break its promise, what exactly do the McCain folks expect to find? They talk of wanting to see Obamaâs reaction to the poem, but do they really think the camera was just zeroed in on the senator all night long, waiting for him to do something suspicious? A terrorist fist-bump, perhaps? Watching with bated breath for a glimpse of the senator as he reacts to a controversial banquet speech is the essence of deliberate oversimplification.
What we do wish the Times had done is be as transparent as possible about how the story came about. Tell us what they can about the sourceâs motivations and why the editors agreed to grant anonymity and to the restrictions on the use of the tape. This would go a long way toward reassuring the rational public that there is no conspiracy here. For everyone else, it doesnât matter what the Times does or says.
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.