Confidential Thoughts
[Guest post by DRJ]
I’m intrigued by the story regarding a videotape of an event where Barack Obama reportedly pays tribute to Rashid Khalidi. Of course, I’m curious what the videotape shows but what intrigues me is the recent justification given by the LA Times for withholding it: A promise to a confidential source.
The main concern of a confidential source is the desire to protect his or her identity and withholding the videotape makes sense to the extent it actually reveals the source’s identity. Perhaps the source was the videographer and something about the videotape’s perspective and/or audio reveals the source’s identity. However, there are a number of ways a videotape could make its way into a reporter’s hands other than from the original videographer. Thus, releasing a copy of a videotape would not necessarily reveal the source.
So let’s assume the LA Times agreed not only to protect the source but also the videotape itself – i.e., the existence of the videotape. If so, hasn’t the LA Times waived confidentiality with regard to the videotape by writing about the event and acknowledging the report was based in whole or in part on a videotape?
The LA Times could have written about the event and based it on anonymous sources but instead it bolstered the authenticity of its story by referencing a videotape. Thus, it seems to me that the LA Times is using the videotape as a sword and a shield: The videotape was originally used as a sword when it added credibility to the original LA Times’ article about the Khalidi event, but now the shield of confidentiality is being used to prevent the videotape’s release and thereby prevent the public from having more information.
When pressed, the LA Times essentially wants to treat the videotape itself as the confidential source but if that’s the case, it should be willing to provide more information about how it acquired the videotape so readers can properly evaluate its authenticity and reliability.
In a way, this reminds me of the TANG documents provided by Bill Burkett to CBS. The LA Times’ refusal to release the videotape would be the equivalent of Dan Rather and CBS writing about the Burkett documents but refusing to provide copies of the documents themselves. Could CBS refuse to reveal its source, Bill Burkett? Absolutely, but I don’t see how CBS could also refuse to reveal the source’s documentary evidence once it published the fact of its existence.
I know there are journalists who read this blog. Please tell me why I’m wrong because I’d like to understand this from a reporter’s perspective.
— DRJ
If you assume they’ve completely chosen a side, then when you add in their complete flexibility with the usage of English the ‘having it both ways’ method could be quite simple.
The reporter on the scene said “Bury this.” Now they call the original reporter “a source with whom we have a confidentiality agreement.”
IOW: “Hi, almost reasonable defense made up right out of thin air.”
It might be someone else as a source, sure. But the defense was written by “a staff writer” according to the byline, not the original reporter. Necessarily.
Al (b624ac) — 10/29/2008 @ 2:06 pmThe answer may be simpler. The original article was printed in April, 2008, when the Democrats were still in the primaries. Hillary was behind. It seems likely that the Clinton campaign gave it to the LAT, hoping that it would sway the election. It would be the same tactic as the Jeremiah Wright episode.
Like a lot of calculations made by the Clinton campaign (and the McCain campaign), the tape was delivered too late to help Hillary, and the tape was buried to protect her image as a loyal Democrat.
And the “source” may have really asked that the tape be buried. Or the “source” may have popped up and reminded everyone of the April, 2008, article. The LAT really wants a Democrat to get elected, so the tape will not see the light of day.
Scott (94805a) — 10/29/2008 @ 2:14 pmPulling up a chair, waiting for IowaHawk to interview the video camera.
htom (412a17) — 10/29/2008 @ 2:20 pm1 + 2:
Those are practical comments and I’m sure there are political issues underlying this kerfuffle, but I’m trying to understand this from the standpoint of a journalist’s duties and ethics.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 10/29/2008 @ 2:23 pmIt’s possible that the tape itself (which might not be per se privileged) reveals, somehow, who the source is (which is privileged, in the ethical sense).
For example, if the tape is about 1 hour long, it might contain repeated audible references, by name, to the person with the camera. “Oh, Mike, put that away, I’m not presentable.” “Mike’s got that camera of his out! Better check your hair!” “Hey, Mike Jones! [camera suddenly swings around]”
Just a thought.
Mitch (890cbf) — 10/29/2008 @ 2:24 pmThe LA Times is waiting to see if rewards smoke out a copy. If NOT, then they’ll release a well-edited tape that shows a whole lotta NADA just to embarass McCain. And it will work.
Jerome (9a71e7) — 10/29/2008 @ 2:26 pmTrue, Mitch, as I noted when I said “[p]erhaps the source was the videographer and something about the videotape’s perspective and/or audio reveals the source’s identity.” But couldn’t that be handled with redactions the way we do with classified documents?
DRJ (cb68f2) — 10/29/2008 @ 2:29 pmJust curious: People are speaking about privilege and confidentiality as if this were a room full of lawyers, and, heck, it just might be.
But I’m thinking that those concepts are different beasts when we speak of media privilege and confidentiality.
Aren’t we simply left with, there’s no real definition of either except to the extent a judge, looking at this particular controversy, is willing to order a “journalist” to divulge underlying data, and break an undocumented contract for nondisclosure?
(The waiver comment is what triggered this question for me. Not an expert, but I doubt a newspaper would be found to have waived privilege by partial disclosure.)
bobby b (361921) — 10/29/2008 @ 2:30 pmI’m not a journalist so I can’t speak to that angle.
Where this is different from the TANG is that people disputed its credibility and ultimately the bogus document was produced. In this case no one seems to be denying that he said these things. Hence no need to prove it with the tape.
What else (people in attendance, expressions, unreported statements, etc.) is on the tape are certainly of interest and some journalist should be trying to get to those issues.
voiceofreason2 (2f54ca) — 10/29/2008 @ 2:51 pmbobby b,
That’s a good point but I’m still curious because:
(1) More confidentiality issues are ending up in the courts, although those typically involve criminal law cases that would not apply here, and
(2) I know journalists have rules, standards and ethics and I’m curious how reporters who aren’t with the LA Times see this.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 10/29/2008 @ 2:51 pmGiving the LA Times the benefit of the doubt, I think Mitch hits on the most likely problem. It may be impossible to release the tape in any form without letting the party attendees know who the cameraman was.
tim maguire (72f509) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:00 pm“(2) I know journalists have rules, standards and ethics and I’m curious how reporters who aren’t with the LA Times see this.”
Now that’s droll. I’ve seen pictures of unicorns but I don’t know that they exist. Absent an entity capable of enforcing standards and ethics, all we know with any certainty is that a great many journalists assert the existence of standards and ethics. Actual proof of their existence remains among the unicorns.
Rick Ballard (14757e) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:09 pmVOR2,
I agree CBS released the TANG documents. My point is that this would be like the TANG case if CBS had refused to release the documents. In other words, if CBS had said “We have these documents but you can’t see them so take our word for what they say.”
DRJ (cb68f2) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:12 pmDRJ – You again, are being more kind than I would be. I do not believe that there is an anonymous source that has requested that their identity be protected. I think they are torpedo-ing it because of the content.
JD (5b4781) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:16 pmtim maguire,
By definition, the attendees were there and it seems unlikely they were unaware someone was videotaping the event given the size of most videotape equipment in 2003. Would releasing the videotape tell the attendees something they didn’t already know? We’re the ones who don’t know who was there. They know.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:17 pmI thought only sources of information could be protected. Now, we have a situation where actual information is being protected. They have forfeited their right to call themselves members of the press.
JD (5b4781) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:17 pmDRJ,
voiceofreason2 (2f54ca) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:18 pmI get that. My point is that from what I’ve seen the Obama camp is not disputing that he said something whereas Bush said the allegations were patently false.
I used to be a regular commenter over at Cathy’s World (the late Cathy Seipp), and we got into some heated conversations with a few reporters at the NYT, who came on to defend their work. They typically started out cordial enough, but the reporters eventually grew testy when we threw too many uncomfortable questions at them – then they quickly devolved into their hallowed “greater truth” nonsense, and that was the end of that.
If the past is any guide, expect no open doors regarding this matter. They always think they know best, and their journo degrees from Columbia and Medill tell them so.
Dmac (e30284) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:18 pmLet me stipulate for the purpose of this comment that, as Mitch proposed in #5, airing the tape would violate confidentiality by outing the source (i.e. the videographer).
What, then, would be the confidentiality-related reason for the LAT not to provide a transcript, and answers to simple questions like, “what scenes are shown?” and “are Dohrn or Ayers shown on the tape?”
That seems like an easily-solved problem.
However, I can think of a possible practical reason for them to decline to do so. Namely, if the tape ever does surface, it will be less embarassing to have stonewalled than to have made comments that elided what the tape actually shows.
AMac (c822c9) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:19 pmJD#16 – I think you captured what I was trying to say. They can protect the source but not necessarily the information. AMac’s transcript is another option.
Most people think this came from a Clinton backer who doesn’t want to be outed for fear of recriminations from Democrats. I realize it’s political but that doesn’t change the fact that reporters have rules and guidelines that govern how confidential sources work. I’m interested in how this should work out if it weren’t so politicized.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:26 pmSome juicy quotes from the tape are already leaking out.
Aldo (4ca181) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:32 pm— trying to understand this from the standpoint of a journalist’s duties and ethics. —
cboldt (3d73dd) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:35 pm.
I’ll make some popcorn. Journalist’s duties are to be entertaining, and to tell stories per editor’s orders.
.
Journalist’s ethics is like blackmailer’s ethics. Don’t get caught. Deny, distract, dissemble.
Why would a Hillary supporter shop this? This would be a positive in the Dem primary. Since when did political concerns get elevated to privileged status? Can you file a FOIA against the media?
JD (5f0e11) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:36 pmHillary and Co. refused to break out their knuckles on The One – they were conned into thinking that they couldn’t attack Obama, for fear of being called racist. And for their rectitude, Bill was tagged with it anyway – pure class.
Dmac (e30284) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:38 pmDRJ, sure, redactions via bleeps and blurrings / pixelizations. (Sorry I missed your anticipation of my main point, there, in my hurried read.)
My guess is that we’ll see something like that emerge, just, y’know, AFTER the election!
Mitch (890cbf) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:45 pmRay Hanania, a Chicagoan of Palestinian descent, gave some background on a local talk show. He mentioned that Tony Rezko (a Syrian) was part of this group as well.
http://www.themediaoasis.com/
Obama's Neighbor (f28dac) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:45 pmAnd if the source is who I think it is, it won’t be hard at all for other media representatives to track him/her down.
Obama's Neighbor (f28dac) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:48 pm— (1) More confidentiality issues are ending up in the courts, although those typically involve criminal law cases that would not apply here —
cboldt (3d73dd) — 10/29/2008 @ 4:01 pm.
No law applies here. There is no such thing as a compulsion to publish. There are legal processes that might be used to compel accepting an advertisement for hire, and there may be certain notices that must be published if paid for (bankruptcy, class action notices and the like), but for some random observation that is in a paper’s hands, they are legally entitled to bury it.
.
— (2) I know journalists have rules, standards and ethics and I’m curious how reporters who aren’t with the LA Times see this. —
.
Me too. Not that I believe journalists make a good faith effort to discharge their self-proclaimed duty to create a well-informed public. One could look to the arguments by the NYT is seeking to publish the Pentagon Papers. Ostensibly, to inform the public about an event that was of public interest, even though it was potentially embarrassing to the government.
.
The only reasonable take-away from this case is that the LA Times is partisan. That’s not “news,” it’s just another example in a long string of examples.
I used to be a reporter and I find the explanation on this incredible. A source obviously allowed the reporter to watch parts or all of the videotape and then let him acknowledge the existence of the tape. Whatever “cover” the source has is essentially blown already. This is the old journalism attitude that you don’t tell us what source material we have to provide. Except, of course, the new journalism (what’s left of it) dictates that survival depends on dumping all source material on the internet. The bottom line is the paper doesn’t want to reveal the contents of the tape and it is coming up with lame excuses to keep it hidden. If Sarah Palin was the target, you can bet it already would have been posted.
Dantana (205f0f) — 10/29/2008 @ 4:02 pmI think it is time to lead another ‘Cancel your LA Times subscription’ drive to try to get some results here. Even if you accept the ‘protect the source’ justification, the double standard is unmistakable.
Josh (494091) — 10/29/2008 @ 4:11 pmSo a mainstream newspaper can compromise national security by revealing the details of top-secret anti-terrorism programs, but it won’t release a videotape of the man who may become the most powerful man in the world during a heated election in a time of war? This is insanity.
Darwin Akbar (11823f) — 10/29/2008 @ 4:12 pmRegarding the Clintons, they couldn’t hit Obama too hard on the associating-with-terrorists-and-radicals without drawing unwanted attention to Bill Clinton’s pardon of one of the Weathermen and those Puerto Rican terrorists.
As a business model, it might benefit the LA Times to declare itself partisan, and to tell the GOP to pound sand. If the GOP wants to air a tape, then it will have to obtain that information on its own, and find a way to publish it.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 10/29/2008 @ 4:14 pm.
At least that approach has the attribute of being honest.
Mitch,
True, and don’t worry about overlooking something I said. I appreciate your response.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 10/29/2008 @ 4:28 pmSomehow I doubt we’re gonna see Obama addressing this on his infomercial tonight.
daleyrocks (60704b) — 10/29/2008 @ 4:41 pmIn this same spirit of revealing stuff, when are we going to hear about McCain’s fatal automobile accident that took a life? A result of his reckless, drunk driving.Why is the navy so secretive about it? We deserve to know!
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/29/2008 @ 4:58 pmlove2008, you really don’t have this analogy thing working too well.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:28 pmIt’s not that Obama and Rashid Khalidi are on the tape, or what they said; it’s that someone else is on the tape, and can’t be edited out (probably sitting at Obama’s table.)
htom (412a17) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:43 pmWhile you are it, point out how McCain is also tied to this PLO scandal. He gave them money.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:57 pmIgnore that decade in between …
JD (5f0e11) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:12 pmHow so?
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:47 pmHow about this, lovie. Go look and see what the IRI had to say about your patent dishonesty. Shocka.
JD (5b4781) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:38 pmI see you also claimed that Sen. McCain killed someone in a drunken driving accident. Care to base that on any facts. That is a pretty serious charge.
JD (5b4781) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:39 pmComment by JD — 10/29/2008 @ 8:39 pm
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:45 pmYou don’t know about that? “Shocka!”
Care to base that on any facts. That is a pretty serious charge.
JD (5b4781) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:33 pmAre you unable or unwilling to substantiate that very serious charge, lovie?
JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 7:42 amCare to base that on any facts. That is a pretty serious charge.
Comment by JD — 10/29/2008 @ 9:33 pm
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:46 amOkay. Start here.
No, lovie. I asked for facts, and documentation. Not some HuffPo rant.
JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 11:48 amComment by JD — 10/30/2008 @ 11:48 am
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/30/2008 @ 12:26 pmGreat. I need facts and documentations that Obama “palls around with terrorists.” And that he is a socialist. I need facts. I also need evidence that Obama agrees with folks who hate Isreal. While you are at it, prove that the link I gave you is a lie. Prove that this was made up. You can’t discount something as false without proof. It’s simple law.
All you have to do is read Obama’s book or look at all of his quotes to see his character revealed. You can call them facts or you can call them character revelations, but whatever you call them, they tell the truth about this leftist illuminati member who is a liar and a racist.
Jeff (7ff0a7) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:34 pmHe did not have a political fundraiser at Bill Ayers’ house? He did not serve with him on the boards of the CAC and Woods Foundations? He did not sit on numerous panels with Ayers? He did not write a blurb for a quote on the cover of Ayers’ book?
Your link offered no evidence. It took incredible leaps of logic, made assertions, and used innuendo. There is no basis in fact for their claims.
JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:37 pmProve a negative or you are a liar is lovie’s attempt at honesty. Nice.
JD (5b4781) — 10/30/2008 @ 8:38 pmDmac:
Sorry that I missed your reply as well as the reference to the sorely missed “Cathy’s World”.
This thread has taken some strange detours since…
TexasJew (94c811) — 11/8/2008 @ 6:14 pm