Hypocrisy, Lies and Videotape at the L.A. Times

The L.A. Times is in possession of a videotape of a 2003 event – variously characterized as a “banquet,” as a farewell party, as a tribute, and by the Times itself as a “celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics” – all in honor of a friend and frequent dinner companion of Barack Obama, Palestinian scholar, Rashid Khalidi, who was leaving Chicago for a job in New York.

About this tape only one thing is certain: Its release will not help Barack Obama get elected on Tuesday. As a matter of fact, it could hurt him in critical states.

The L.A. Times admits it is in possession of this tape but refuses to release it, despite demands that it do so by John McCain, Sarah Palin and others. Simplified, the arguments boil down to this: Those demanding its release accuse the Times of throwing away the public’s right to know in order to protect a candidate that its own editorial board has endorsed, while the Times says they are ethically bound to abide by a promise to a confidential source not to share the video.

In an article in the Times dated October 30, 2008, James Rainey, an L.A. Times staff writer, quotes several journalism professors, authorities on journalistic values and ethics, all of whom side with the Times in their decision, some of which say that it is not a good idea to enter into such agreements [to begin with].

Besides noting the obnoxious habit of the media – and its obvious hypocrisy - of picking and choosing between values in conflict as it suits them, it is worthwhile to consider – and I admit, in the absence of knowing who the mysterious confidential source is, speculate – as to the motive of the source and exactly what the agreement between the source and the media is.

Let’s examine the timing of the release of the video. It appears that the confidential source notified the Times of, or provided the Times with, the video sometime in the end of March or beginning of April of this year. The original article, by Peter Wallsten, a staff writer at the Times, was dated April 10, 2008.

In early February, Hillary Clinton had won the California primary and over the course of the next two months the race for the Democratic nomination looked very close. Hillary made her claims to be the nominee of the party, as did Barack Obama. Let’s try to figure out what the politics of this confidential source could possibly be.

The source clearly cannot be a McCain supporter or they would have provided the video to the McCain campaign. It clearly could not be an Obama supporter, because if that were so, why release the tape at all? The only logical conclusion is that the tape was provided to the L.A. Times by someone who believed that Hillary should be the Democratic nominee. And in that likelihood rests the logic behind the demand that the tape would not be released by the Times to the public. The intention of the tape was to “wound” Obama, but not “kill” him. It was intended to give Hillary an edge in the Democratic nomination but the source was very clever in hedging his or her bets: If Hillary should lose the nomination, he or she didn’t want this incident to be used by the Republicans to defeat Obama in the general election.

In this sense, the Times was used, possibly duped. It allowed its journalistic pages, its reporters, to be used for a very partisan purpose – to try to help Hillary get the Democratic nomination.

What exactly was the agreement between the Times and the source? How much detail could the reporter write about what they saw on the tape and how much could be quoted? Who reached this agreement with the source? Was it the reporter alone or was this reviewed by editors and publishers? In other words, what was agreed to – and by whom? We just don’t know. None of this has thus far been detailed by the Times – and don’t hold your breath waiting for an explanation.

A review of the original article shows that not a lot of detail was included. For example, we don’t know who sponsored or paid for this event. Was it a private function or was it (semi-)public? Were there 50 people in attendance or 500? Was the tape made surreptitiously or did all the speakers – including then state Senator Barack Obama – know it was being recorded? Who was it being recorded by and for? Were multiple copies disseminated? How did this source come by his or her copy of the video?

Wallsten wrote in his April article that Palestinian American leaders believe “that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say,” and that this belief stems from “his [Obama’s] presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.”

Yet he cites but one example and only two quotes from the entire event: “At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, ‘then you will never see a day of peace.’ One speaker likened ‘Zionist settlers on the West Bank’ to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been ‘blinded by ideology’.”

Wallsten then writes, “Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground.”

Is that all that was said negative about Israel and American policy towards the Middle East? Does the agreement between the newspaper and the confidential source preclude the release of a full-transcript of the event and greater details about the number in attendance – and the guest list?

Admittedly, this entire incident is more than a little bit embarrassing for the Times. First of all, they had endorsed Obama for the California primary in February which, as was already noted, Hillary won. But despite that endorsement, they allowed themselves to be used to hurt Obama while he still was contending with Hillary for the nomination.

The Times, of course, would counter-argue that the publication of this article only shows how their news reporters are unbiased and independent of their editorial stance and that their reporters report the news both positive and negative about candidates they endorse. That may be true. However, it doesn’t take away from the likelihood that (1) their reporters were taken advantage of by the source, and (2) that their editorial board is now protecting Obama from further hurt by cloaking themselves in cherry-picked ethics.

In law there is the concept of “the fruit of the poisonous tree,” that all information and evidence derived from an originally illegal method (i.e., a search conducted without a proper warrant) is tainted and is not admissible at trial.

Similarly, the agreement entered into between the L.A. Times and the confidential source - the terms of which remain unknown, as do the names of those who negotiated it on both sides - was itself highly unethical. To now claim the ethics of upholding an unethical agreement as the reason to avoid the tape’s release– if such an agreement even exists – is in itself unethical, immoral, hypocritical and an untenable position, given the counterweight of the public’s right to know and to decide for itself the value of the tape.