Posted by
Marie-Jacqueline on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:32:03 PM
Should The LA Times release the video tape for the public to see before Election day?
I always heard that the media could protect their source by not saying who gave them info but in this case they are with holding the info itself. If they fully covered the meeting with out leaving out anything then what would it hurt? By withholding the video it tells me that some facts must not have made it to print or they would have nothing to hide.
Ok, So the LA Time claims that they promised not to show it to anyone. If that is true, then it is logical to assume that the reason for inhibiting free viewing would be to hide information that is on the video tape and release only selective facts via print media that they wished to disclose. If this were not so …If it were only reflective of the information that the LA Times wrote in their article then what would be the harm of letting us see it? It would not tell us who supplied them with the video so that defense does not seem to hold water? Question wasn’t this video supplied to them during the primaries - Could Hillary or another Democrat candidate have been the source? Not that I would have blamed any of them for doing so. What other source would have had access to the video to begin with? Why withhold it now?
The LA Time should allow us to see the unedited video so that we the voters, the American Public, can judge what we thought of the content and of Obama’s conduct.
It is not just about what Obama said but perhaps more about how he reacted to what was being said and what he didn’t say, that perhaps he should have said.
I would like to see for myself if there is footage of Obama’s face and his reactions to the hate speech that was being spewed in the form of anti-Israel poetry.
Did Obama look indifferent? Did he agree or did he seem disgusted? If he was offended by what was being said wasn’t he obligated ( using his own measure and words here..) to repudiate this hate full talk.
Also, from what I hear, there were a number of people at this going away party also tearing apart our country for standing with Israel. Did he find it politically expedient to let it go with out speaking out to defend our national policies?
Was he sitting next to Ayers or some other radical ? We don’t know because once again — the elite media is deciding what we need to know.. The LA Times is being a filter…they act as if we are to stupid and simple minded to read between the lines and judge for ourselves what we think of Obama. They endorsed Obama, so now I would suggest they have a conflict of interest and they officially have a dog in the fight.