Patterico's Pontifications


James Rainey: You Should *Thank* The L.A. Times for Withholding the Khalidi Tape

Filed under: 2012 Election,Dog Trainer,General,Obama — Patterico @ 7:35 pm

James Rainey says we should be thanking the L.A. Times for withholding the Khalidi tape — because if they hadn’t promised to do so, we never would have heard about it in the first place:

The latest resurrection of the Khalidi video mythology came this week courtesy of The website on Thursday offered a $100,000 reward for a copy of the “Khalidi tape” — which the right-wing site speculates will lay bare the ugly back story of Obama’s disdain of Israel, his “sacrifice” of Free Speech, and his effusive support of Mideast radicals.

. . . .

So why couldn’t the newspaper simply release the video, along with the story? This is where the tempest, which began four years ago, continues to this day.

The misunderstanding stems from one camp’s unwillingness to hear, or acknowledge, some essential truths about the way journalists do their jobs. Wallsten, like every other honest reporter out there battling for information, must build relationships with sources.

Every conversation about a piece of information becomes a transaction. For many sources who share previously confidential information, their threshold for divulging the secret is that their identity be shrouded. That also means keeping confidential any details, regarding the exchange of information, that might tend to divulge the source’s identity.

In the case of the Khalidi video, the unnamed source agreed to share the illuminating bit of video evidence with Wallsten, but only with the understanding that the reporter could not reproduce or rebroadcast the images. The journalist had to make a decision: Do I agree to that condition and get to see evidence that no other reporter has seen of Obama meeting with Palestinian Americans? Or do I insist on a full public release of the video, with the likely outcome that the source would share nothing?

Wallsten pushed for the release of the video but when the source would not agree, Wallsten agreed to accept more limited access to the recording. He agreed not to reveal his source nor share the video with anyone else.

The net result: The world got a story that showed Obama the political operator, sliding between two opposite and highly contentious worlds. The audience did not get to view the video, but it got far more than it had without The Times’ reporting. That’s the nature of some journalistic negotiations; giving up the perfect to obtain the very good.

That’s fine, as far as it goes. But there are some other steps that could be taken, and I pointed them out in November 2008, just before the last presidential election:

I’m at a loss as to why editors can’t take simple steps that (as far as we know) are not precluded by the promise to the source. They could:

  • Prepare and release a transcript.
  • Go back to the source and ask permission to release the tape now.
  • View the tape again to see if Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were present (as has been rumored) — and if they were, publish a story setting forth the details of their interaction, if any, with Senator Obama.
  • View the tape again to see whether Senator Obama is shown on tape during any of the more controversial statements — and if he was, describe his reaction.

Promises to withhold source material, while they may be necessary for a story, should be disfavored. If they’re given, editors should give them the narrowest possible reasonable interpretation.

Instead, editors seem determined to construe their promises more broadly than even their source contemplated. They haven’t said they promised not to release a transcript, for example. So why haven’t they?

Do me a favor and help me ask James Rainey for a response as to why these things couldn’t be done. He decided to opine, so he can’t really refuse to answer on the grounds that it’s someone else’s story.

These are fair questions. Could you answer them, Mr. Rainey?

Rainey can be contacted at and is on twitter at (I am on Twitter at Follow me if you haven’t already!)

Thanks to dana.

P.S. I will happily publish any missive sent to Rainey, along with his response, if any.

Public Resources Illegally Used to Advocate for Tax Increase in Schools

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:32 am

The Orange County Register has an editorial this morning noting the illegal use of state public resources to advocate for Proposition 30, which would increase taxes in the State of California:

[I]t is illegal for public universities to use school resources “for the purposes of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure.” (Education Code 7054(c)). The California Supreme Court upheld that ban three years ago. In our view, there’s an inherent conflict of interest when professors tell students how to vote.

But that ban on electioneering isn’t being universally observed when it comes to Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown’s Nov. 6 ballot measure to raise sales and income taxes. California State University officials sent professors “talking points,” “sample letters to the editor,” and “PowerPoints” to push its passage as part of its “tool kit” to highlight how Prop. 30 will “impact” California higher education.

In addition, the CSU Board of Trustees has voted for a 5 percent tuition increase only if the proposition fails to pass — and the CSU administration sent hundreds of thousands of parents letters saying, essentially, that if the proposition doesn’t pass, little Billy or Susie may not have a spot in the CSU system.

Meanwhile, the editorial states, “[t]uition is at its highest levels in decades, and college administrator benefits have never been more generous.”

Since the activity is illegal, I am sure Kamala Harris will be all over it. If my eyes were rolling any more I’d be looking at the back of my skull.

Politically Motivated Burglary? UPDATE: Apparently Not

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:20 am

That’s what this sounds like:

[Yesterday] morning in New York, staff arrived at Republican Rep. Michael Grimm’s re-election campaign headquarters to find windows shattered by rocks and pieces of cement.

Grimm released a statement that the burglary “is a disgraceful act of cowardice that is beneath the people I represent,” adding that he had “never saw anything as dirty or disgraceful as this.”

There are no known suspects, according to police. However, a press release states that police do believe that the broken windows is a “cover-up for the burglary in which the suspect corrupted and erased the hard-drive of the campaign computer server, which contains confidential campaign files and polling data.”

Thanks to JD.

UPDATE: False alarm. The vandal was an eighth grader and apparently no computer data was affected. Why Grimm said it was, I have no idea. Thanks to jim2.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0593 secs.