First, let's review. Rashid Khalidi is currently a professor at Columbia University. He was once a professor at the University of Chicago where he was a colleague of Barack Obama's. They had some sort of a relationship though it is unclear just how close that relationship is. The L.A. Times published a story in which the author, Peter Wallsten, talks about a going away party thrown in the honor of Mr. Rashidi in which this occurred.
During the dinner 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."
Among the attendees were none other than Mr. and Mrs. Khalidi, Mr. and Mrs. Obama, and Mr. and Mrs. William Ayers. According to Gateway Pundit, the L.A. Times has a copy of a tape of this soiree but they won't release it. Here what Little Green Footballs produced regarding the L.A. Times' response to readers asking for release of the tape.
The Times did write about the tape, so I’m not sure what you mean about suppressing the video or information from the video. Here is a copy of the
report about the video.Thanks again for writing,Jamie GoldReaders’ Representative
...
If that is the case, then release the video that you have of the event and don’t merely report it. Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi - former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?
...
Thanks for your note back. It sounds as if you don’t find “mere reporting” to be enough, but The Times is not suppressing anything.Just the opposite — the L.A. Times brought the matter to light. Thanks again for taking the time to
write.Jamie GoldReaders’ Representative
Now, there is no reason either journalistically or business wise not to release the tape. We've all heard the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words". Well, here an audio would also be worth a thousand words. There is no way for the reader to get any proper context without hearing the audio. As such, the L.A. Times' refusal to release the tape is another example of the MSM being in the tank.
Now, let's just imagine they weren't. What would happen? The first thing that would happen is that the Times website would approach records for number of hits in a single day. Those in sales, advertising, and marketing would have a field day trying to figure out ways to make money in banner advertising on that particular page. The L.A. Times would be linked by everyone from this blog to the government website of Kenya and everyone in between. The Times would go from scourge of the Conservative community to heroes. Their circulation would explode as Republicans and Independents would see the Times as a "courageous newspaper" and forgive all prior transgressions. The banner ad from this page would fetch fifty to one hundred times what they would normally fetch. (given their current struggles the extra ad revenue couldn't come at a better time)
They would become the scourge of the left wing establishment of the likes of Daily Kos, Moveon.org, and Media Matters. Their circulation would drop among the more liberal readers, but not nearly as much as it would pick up by Conservatives. Furthermore, the massive attention it would receive would also explode circulation.
The Times would be wise not to allow embed of the video and to warn You Tube et al ahead of time that the video is the Times' property and so it can't be downloaded in their sites. As such, they would be the one and only holders of the most talked about thing in the world.
The Obama campaign would call them a lackey for the McCain campaign and call it a coordinated plot between McCain, Fox News, and the L.A. Times. Then, all their reporters would be banned from interviewing the campaign. Obama's spokespeople would be on every airway calling this a distraction from the real issues. They would say this is a desperate attempt by the McCain campaign to to distract the public from the failing economy. Surrogates would becry this tape as guilt by associations. Sean Hannity would begin repeating: Chickens come home to roost, the first time in my life I am proud of my country, Bill Ayers unrepetent terrorist, and the crook Tony Rezko (though frankly that would be no different than what he does now) over and over.
Politically, the tape would then run as the so called loop for the next several days. Eventually of course, that tape would begin to run in a loop with some other well known tapes.
The Khalidi relationship would then be examined in the prism of the relationship that Barack Obama had with the likes of Bill Ayers. In other words, it would be the death knell of the Obama campaign. The inflammatory nature of this tape especially combined with the inflamatory nature of the Wright tapes, would send chills down the spines of most voters. I would take a bet as long as I got the "reasonable" 3 to 2 (in other words I bet two dollars to win 3) odds that Obama loses Illinois. The Democrats might not gain any seats. They might even lose seats. Barack Obama and the Democrats would suffer a stunning loss just as they were tasting victory.
All of this would happen merely by releasing a tape that any basic journalism student could tell you should be released regardless of the impact.
5 comments:
I think you're wrong business-wise when you say releasing the tape now would help them more than hurt them. If they released it now and it single-handedly flipped the election, virtually every Democrat who was excited about finally getting a Presidency win would unsubscribe in rage. There would not be nearly enough new subscriptions to make-up for, let alone surpass, the unsubscriptions (rage is always a more powerful motivator than glee).
Now you may have a point that the video should be released. 6 months ago (when they got the tape and wrote the article). Given that they made the perhaps unwise decision not to publish the video then, it would be unfair to publish it out of nowhere now, in the final week of the election.
I do so love to debate you. Your collegiate intellect reminds me of my own at the time.
Actually, there are a lot more Republicans who aren't subscribers to the L.A. Times, than there are Democrats that aren't. However many Democrats they would lose would be more than made up for the number of Republicans they would gain. Furthermore, only the rabid partisans that can't see beyond their partisan filter would cancel their subscription because of this. It makes all the sense in the world to release the tape. It's what they should do for proper journalistic context. Most Democrats would appreciate it.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. On the eve of the 2000 election, it was Carl Cameron, of Fox News, that broke the story about W's DWI 20 years earlier. Fox News didn't get hurt with their Conservative viewers, did they? In fact, most of you liberals don't even know that it was fox news that broke the story.
The same thing would happen here.
Before making an argument, you ought to look back at history, even recent history, and see some context. It will help you understand things better.
Well I still must say that this situation would be different. That drunk driving story did not flip the election, and if it did it would have done so by nudging a close election, which would have been somewhat frustrating but not near the magnitude this would be. In this situation it looks as if Obama's going to win by a large margin, possibly even a landslide. His supporters are getting more and more excited, as you say we can "taste victory," and then out of nowhere comes this tape to accompany a 6-month-old story, which crashes everything. To be somewhat crude here, talk about the ultimate cock-block.
I think it would have been worth releasing 6 months ago, and I voted for Hillary in the primaries due to some questions about Obama raised by the likes of these kinds of stories. But Obama's has shown, at least to the majority of Americans, that he's not a radical during this 6 months. Sure, he made questionable political associations in the far-left district where he first had to build his political career, but he's grown out of all that, and his policies are mainstream. Like I said, this video would have been worth releasing 6 months ago, but there is no newsworthy basis to do so now; there would only be a political sabotage basis.
I will give you credit for tenacity. You have a hard time admitting you are wrong and often you will argue an untennable position, like this one, for a while before giving up.
The drunk driving story happened 20 years prior and Bush was ahead, somewhat narrowly, but ahead.
Again, there are a lot less liberals that are currently subscribers of the L.A. Times then there are Conservatives that aren't. Second, the amount of money they would make from ad revenue on the day they released the video would dwarf their subscription revenue regardless.
If the paper did things right, they could literally turn revolutionize into strictly an online newspaper and with the plethora of new eyeballs, they could easily transform the paper.
The idea that something as newsworthy as this would hurt their business is absurd and ridiculous. We are talking about something in the neighborhood of twenty million hits on that page alone if it was rolled out correctly. You are now making the case this would be bad for business.
The Republican Party is just a bunch of white racists. It is filled with a bunch of Angry White Guys (and Gals) who think the 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration Act ruined America because it made it a lot harder for whites from Ireland, England, France, Germany, Italy, etc. to immigrate to the U.S. and made it a lot easier for the Chinese, Indians, Jamaicans, Mexicans, Egyptians, etc. to immigrate to the U.S. What these racists don't GET is that the 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration Act (Thank You Senator Ted Kennedy) greatly increased Diversity in the U.S. which has made OUR Nation stronger and a much more multicultural place to live. Before 1965 Whites of European descent made up 88% of the U.S. population. Now whites only make up 65% of the U.S. population and by 2042 they will only make up 49% of the population. By 2100 Whites of European descent will only make up about 30% of the U.S. population and only 3% of the World Population. The 2008 Election is just a turning point in American History though. By the end of this century white Europeans will be out of power in the United States(FINALLY!) and then we can finally end WHITE PRIVILEDGE and can get REAL Affirmative Action, REAL Reparations, REAL Change, and begin to redistribute wealth and property back to those who deserve it. Unfortunately, these Changes won't take place until the White Kids in Strollers and Elementary School today are in their 60's and 70's. The World is Flat. The white racist Republicans just don't seem to get it!
Post a Comment