Obama, the videotape and informing the public

Earlier this month, six months after the original story was published about Barack Obama's ties with Palestinians and Jews, people started calling and sending e-mails to the L.A. Times urging the paper to "release the video." A few notes became a flood of more than 15,000 e-mails by Wednesday morning calling the paper un-American, partisan and worse after Sen. John McCain's campaign accused The Times of "suppressing" a videotape.

The e-mails to The Times included links to an Oct. 25 blog post that said The Times was "hiding incriminating" information. 

Most who called and e-mailed seemed not to have even read The Times' April news article that had brought the event in question to light, headlined "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama: They consider him receptive despite his clear support of Israel." The front-page piece when it was published drew some criticism from the left. But that reaction has been dwarfed by the number of page views and responses the story has drawn over the past five days. The article examined presidential candidate Obama's view of Middle East politics. It included a description of a gathering held in Chicago by local Arab Americans for Rashid Khalidi, described in the story as "an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights." The story also said, "The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times."

The Times itself addressed the criticisms in a news story published Wednesday. In it, Editor Russ Stanton said, "The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it. The Times keeps its promises to sources."

Many responses were similar to that of Erich R. Bleiweiss, from Burlington, N.J.,  who said in an e-mail: "Please do not insult me by stating that the L.A. Times is protecting a source. This would only be a matter of convenience on the part of the L.A. Times and nothing more."

Those bombarding the paper saw it as if the issues were diametrically opposed -- "informing the public" vs. "protecting a source." The nuances of the issue were highlighted even more in Thursday's news story in The Times, when various journalists added to the conversation about the principle of how journalists work with sources.

The editor of the April story, Aaron Zitner, who works in The Times' Washington, D.C., bureau, noted that the paper would have preferred to be able to post the video but could not get the source to agree. Zitner said, "If we had not reached this agreement, we would not have had access to this tape at all. Then no one would ever have known Obama attended this event and spoke at it. We were pushing to say the most we could and to present the most we could to readers about what happened."

Thursday's article also quotes Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. "The calculus a reporter is making is: 'What is the public good of getting the information, and does it outweigh the limitations that the source wants me to put on the information?' In this case, knowing about this event and being able to describe it to readers seems like a pretty good trade-off for not being able to release the video."

Support for The Times' sticking to its journalistic priniciples came in a post from Bill Sammon, the deputy managing editor of Fox News Channel's Washington bureau. Saying that the choice was "pretty simple," Sammon wrote of The Times and the reporter on the April story, "Indeed, [Peter] Wallsten has little choice in the matter. If he were to cave in to mounting public demands for the tape, no self-respecting source would ever give him another shred of information. Nor should they."

Others had started weighing in earlier in the week.

Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz clarified the issue in a blog entry Wednesday on the Huffington Post: "A simplistic view of freedom of speech would favor full and timely disclosure of all relevant information regardless of any promises made to a source. The more complex view of freedom of speech holds that unless newspapers keep their promises (and unless the law allows them to keep their promises) there will be less not more information available to the public."

One of the first journalists to raise the questions publicly was a blogger on Politico. Before The Times itself stated its position, Ben Smith wrote on Tuesday, "Critics have suggested that the Times is withholding the video for political reasons, but there are other possibilities: competitive reasons, or simply out of tradition. In the mechanics of reporting, there's another possibility as well. The video may have been given to the paper on the condition it not be released, or releasing it could compromise its source."

News stories Thursday in The Times and elsewhere have answered that. L.A. Times Washington bureau chief Doyle McManus was quoted in an article in the New York Times: “We revealed this event. We didn’t suppress it. It’s not unusual for reporters to be given information in ways that allow them to authenticate it but don’t give them complete control of the information. We are sometimes shown documents that we are allowed to read but not keep.”

Still the "release the tape" calls come in, from those who read the April 2008 article and say they want to come to their own conclusions, as well as those who were unaware that The Times had published a story at all. Typical was this from Jim Smart of Lakewood, Colo.: "I am extremely disappointed that your newspaper has information on one of the presidential candidates and has chosen not to disclose it.... It means that your paper does not believe in a free press since you are willing to act as an agent of manipulation rather than information."

But calls and e-mails like this from Michael Piekutowski started coming in late Wednesday morning, and also are coming in by the hundreds still: "If you were to release this source, it would scare off other sources on whistle-blowing stories.... Please maintain your integrity."

More columns on the issue:

• Commentary by ABC News' Sam Donaldson
• Eric Zorn at the Chicago Tribune
• Poynter's Kelly McBride

Comments

[Cecilia Trent]

I have read the article. Release the tape. I am perfectly aware of your paper's increasing bias. Unfortunately, it leans left rather than the middle. It is quite possible that your writer, whose biases lean left , was very selectively in reporting what was on the tape. Let the public decide. Your reputation is at stake. Can you afford to lose your faithful readers? Look at what is happening to The New York Times. Their readership has dropped significantly because of their blatant bias in this election.

[westy]

The original blog link with the first comments made before this manufactured uproar is here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/before-obamas-p.html

[Mark]

I will disclose that I am a registered Democrat, and will be voting for Barack Obama.

Confidential sources to a newspaper, are like an informant to the Police. If the times were to divulge their source, any future sources would simply point to this example and rightfully say that the paper capitulated to public pressure.

Having stated that I am a registered Democrat, I find it to be yet another example of how the McCain/Palin ticket is one of the worst managed campaigns in history. The Republicans were sitting pretty six months ago, slightly ahead in the polls, with Iraq and Afghanistan front and center in voters concerns. I can guarantee that they looked at the article (how could they miss it), and decided that it was a non-starter and moved on. Now, at the 11th hour, with Foreign Policy experience not so important, Seniority and Leadership experience not so important (thank you Sarah Palin...*wink*), and the economy in the tank (*slapping* George Bush), the Republicans are quite literally scratching in the dirt, pouring over anything they have, throwing it out, and hoping it sticks. Joe the Plumber !....please, the guy isn't even a plumber (no license), he's been an apprentice for 12 years, he owe several thousand dollars in back taxes, his name is not Joe, its Samuel, and Obama's tax plan would actually help him.

Maybe McCain used the same vetting team that sized up the Alaskan Maverick, Sarah Palin *wink*...

[Gerhard MAck]

I'm amazed at the accusations I've seen about you being in Obama's pocket considering the LA Times has been one of the least Obama friendly papers out there.

Stick to your ethics. The worst will probably be over in a few days.

[Keith in Phoenix]

A fine, reasoned presentation of information......except, how do we know that's the reality? Are you telling us that it COULDN'T be that the Times does not want to damage Sen. Obama?

Would you believe that if it was a story about John McCain, published by a paper sympathetic to Sen. McCain?

[Brian Jones]

You have ptotential world changing information in your possession. Wether the tape shows something negative or positive for Obama, not releasing it has an impact on how people think.

Sometimes for the greater good, the need of one is outweighed by the need of many. You should realease the tape so that everyone can see that Obama is innocent of any wrong doing.

[rckstrdave]

Who cares about the stupid tape? Obama supports Israel, but doesn't show utter contempt for the Palestinians like Republicans often do. He had dinner with some prominent Arabs. Get over it. Muslims are not our enemies, and stoking subtle religious and racial fear is not the answer.

[Steve D.]

Cecilia Trent wrote:

Release the tape...your reputation is at stake.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Times' reputation is indeed at stake, although not necessarily in the way Ms. Trent suggests. If the Times breaks its word with a source, they will lose their reputation and credibility with potential news sources around the world.

I find it hard to believe that the contents of such a tape would have much if any impact on the average voter.
The worst case scenario? Senator Obama rubbed shoulders with a critic of Israel. So what? It's a free country, people. While Israel has certainly endured hardship at the hands of the PLO, surely all thinking people will agree that there are two sides to every story. Senator Obama seems to be far more cognisant of this obviousness than nearly anyone in the current administration, and I for one am looking forward to the American image abroad improving as a result.

[ArmyWife]

HuffPo? Alan Dershowitz? They wouldn't have a reason to keep this stuff under wraps or anything, now would they?

I DID read the original article. It wasn't flattering. I still want the tape released, or the transcripts at the very least. If the worst of what Senator Obama did was in the article, then releasing the tape should not cause an issue. You are concerned about harm to the source? From who? The radicals on the tape or Senator Obama's truth squad?

[Steve D.]

Brian Jones wrote:

You should realease the tape so that everyone can see that Obama is innocent of any wrong doing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, yes...I want to see for myself whether he had the red wine with the chicken, and how far away he sat from Khalidi.
Additionally, I think we can all agree that the sooner Senator Obama states once and for all that he's NOT a terrorist pedophile, the better.

Good grief.

[Steve]

This is now excuse/ explanation number 5. The last excuse was "protecting a source." As a fellow journalist, I can say this story makes it even more obvious that thisr hole of dishonesty digs deeper every day. What's really at stake here has nothing to do with "confidentiality" -- what this matter entails is keeping a source anonymous. Maintaining anonymous sources IS NOT the same as "confidentiality." The two are separate and distinct issues. But the LA Times is conflating the two in the hopes that the Video evidence will never come to light.

-a fellow reporter

[aperson]

You don't seem to grasp the issue here. In this article and various other responses to the uproar, you keep repeating the mantra, "But we already described the contents of the tape. The public doesn't need to actually view it -- WE viewed it, and reported what we saw to you. Isn't that good enough?"

No! It is not good enough. And you know why? WE NO LONGER TRUST YOU.

That's right. We think you're lying. We think the tape shows more than simply what was described in the original article. And that you are intentionally misrepresenting it to us.

Gone are the days when journalists had some magical imprimatur of reliability and impartiality. The public tolerates being spoon-fed information by you simply because we have no other choice; despite the media's waning influence, to a certain degree have you still a monopoly on primary sources of news. We the public would PREFER to see the data raw, and not filtered through the eyes, perceptions and biases of writers and editors and newscasters whom we are quite sure are using their position of power to distort information to their own political whims.

I realize full well that you will never release the video -- or at least until after the election, when it will be deemed safely irrelevant. You may get your man elected president, but your credibility with the public will be forever destroyed.

You may be able to continue obtaining supposedly top-secret information from supposedly top-secret sources, but no one will care anymore because no one will be reading your newspaper -- since they no longer trust what you have to say.

[Damon Atherly]

I understand the issue of journalistic ethics and of protecting a source, but at the same time there is also a valid public interest in seeing this tape. It seems to me that presenting the issue as a black and white choice between releasing the tape or not presents a false dichotomy.

Surely it's possible, for example, to release more information about the contents of the tape without revealing the source? Who all was at this meeting? What specifically did they say? What was Obama recoded saying, or what were his reactions to what others were saying?

If I were the editor making these decisions, I certainly would do everything possible to respect the wishes of whoever provided the tape, but I would also be talking to that person and finding out, without pressuring him, if perhaps enough time had passed that he now feels comfortable about releasing it. Or if not, at least providing more information about what is on it.

I am, a registered Democrat, for all who think that makes a difference.

[Brian]

Most of these people have no clue that these deals are made every day so journalists can maintain valuable sources. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein never gave out their anoymous sources. If so, there would never have been the Pulitzer Prize winning Watergate stories. McCain calls Obama dishonest. The Times would be dishonest to reveal the video when the editors agreed NOT to.

[John F.]

Any respectable news paper would have done the same as the LA Times and did NOT release the tape, since they gave their word to protect the source of their information.
"Hiding information" would have meant not reporting this whole story, but they did report it and even thoroughly.
So what's this fuss about?
If the LA Times released this tape, I wonder how many people would trust a newspaper's word on anything after that. This is a question of ethics.
P.S I'm not an Obama supporter and I have never been. But this is not about the presidential elections, it's about journalistic ethics.

[Kristen]

Somebody said something that bears repeating. TRUST. That's what this is all about. We no longer trust that your reporter adequately, correctly, and fully reported on the event. Period. I've been pairing my LATimes with Patterico and Newsbusters for too long to trust anything that comes out of a newspaper on first read. You guys simply do not have consistently good enough analysis skills or a POV that can determine all newsworthy content.

Release the tape or a full transcript with a list of attendees. Then I can judge your reporting. A-HAH!
The most likely reason for not wanting to release it!

[gottendammerung]

The issue is simple. If releasing the tape would compromise the source, make transcripts or excerpts available for viewing that do not expose the source.

If Obama did something bad, expose it.
If McCain does something wrong expose it.

Red Blue, etc. Candidates are beholden to us, the citizens of the United States. We have a right to know critical facts about the candidates.We don't need to parse words, but we do need to understand intent.

[Buzzy]

The whole "protecting a source" story would ring much more true if it didn't take DAYS for that excuse to come out.

If that had been the first excuse given by the times, it'd be one thing. Spending 2-3 days saying "Nothing to see here, move along" before saying "Can't you people see we're PROTECTING A SOURCE" makes it look like you're hiding something.

[Jonah Gruber]

The real issue is whether or not this matters. Let's assume the L.A. Times "releases" this tape. It is just more headlines for McCain camp to claim that Obama is a "terrorist." Obama is not returning the fire toward McCain by pointing out that McCain is closely related to the target of these attacks himself (Khalidi), as everybody who follows this story now knows.

I find this to be a typical 11th hour attack. The L.A. Times is really damned if they do and damned if they don't in regard to this meaningless tape. Also I find the implication that Khalidi is a violent person, when nobody who is making these claims knows a thing about him, to be in essence racist and aimed at provoking fear in the Jewish voters of Florida (duh). Khalidi works very closely with Israelis and only the form form of hardline rightwingers seem to have an issue with him.

This is such a non-issue, and such a waste of time.

[business owning woman]

Why is it that all the angry right-wingers don't stop to think FOR ONE SECOND that perhaps IF they were hiding something, they wouldn't have written in the article in the first place. That's a no brainer.

[Virgil]

For the record, let me say that the Times did the right thing not showing the tape. If they gave their word, then that is that. At least we know Obama is friends with terrorist groups, meets with them, speaks to them, and has a grand old time at their social events. We never doubted this. Obama supporters will dismiss it; the rest of us see a pattern; Ayers, his pastor, this guy, what ever his hame is...put together Obama has a long history of bad associates.

Now, on to the problem that the LA Times has...you endorsed a candidate! This type of issue is why the practice of Newspapers endorsing candidates is WRONG! Granted it is a long tradition, but it makes your motives suspect. Had the Times never endorsed any candidate, they you would look good to everyone. Any paper that endorses or sides with one candidate loses the ability to say they are a nuetral reporter, and runs the risk of appearing partisan when something like this happens.

Let this be a lesson to newspapers; report the news, don't pick candidates. Then you can tell the news the way it is, and live up to your agreements, without causing all this rukus! Had you never indicated a preference in candidates, think how much better you would look right now!

[Amazed]

As an interested outsider, I have been deeply perturbed by the lack of logical reasoning, and what I would consider, embarrassing level of ignorance displayed by a considerable chunk of the electorate of a nation that has such a large impact on the rest of the world. It becomes downright scary.

If any newspaper obtained a tape as supporting evidence from a source, then put out a story about the incident, what makes that tape public property? What basis for demands to release it? If the paper should do that, what is it's chances of garnering other vital information to bring you, the public, if nobody will ever trust it again to maintain confidentiality?

The paper, if biased, could simply have refused to print any story in the first place. A contact of trust between sources and a newspaper is not public property.

Demand more of your politicians, they are public servants. The media isn't.

A president should be elected based on his vision. Not based on who had the least mud slung at him.

[Art]

Having read the article, like many others I would like to see it before the election. However, it is your duty to protect your source. No matter how much I don't like it. I hope that if the video surfaces in other fashion or shape is not damaging to people of the United States. And is nothing more than just another politician trying to get votes. I do feel that this election has become more about the dislike of the sitting president, than analyzing the better man for the job. I also feel let down by many media outlets that are not doing their job. Give me the facts and let me form my own opinion!

[Russ]

Interesting that no one seemed to be in a furvor to have the video released when the story was originally published... ah, but since the campaign said the Times was hiding something...!

I guess if the commenters here aren't persuaded by the obvious (fail to honor promises to sources = fewer sources = less news, not more), they just won't be persuaded. Take this in the spirit it was offered: I support your decision, and the right of journalists generally to protect their sources in order to do their jobs. Granted, I'm skeptical of the news media like many of your other commenters, but this was not a cover-up.

[Timothy McGarry]

I believe the paper has acted correctly in this matter. Promises should be honored and editors should support their reporters.

My sense is that the volume of comments reflects the fact that this is an organized effort, with the McCain campaign at the center. They have mobilized conservative bloggers who are happy to take up a "cause" and in turn mobilize thier readers. I would wager that the number of regular LAT readers who have commented is relatively small.