Dark Star

The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape by Andrew C. McCarthy on National Review Online

Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor ... who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.

Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.

[More]

Little Green Footballs - LA Times Responds to Readers: Get Lost

This is how the Los Angeles Times has chosen to respond to requests to release the Obama-Rashid Khalidi videotape, courtesy of an LGF reader.

To paraphrase: “No, we’re not going to release the video. Go away.”

From: Readers Rep
Date: Monday, October 27, 2008 16:14
Subject: RE: Not read: The L.A. Times Suppressing Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape?
To:

[...]

The Times did write about the tape, so I’m not sure what you mean aboutsuppressing the video or information from the video. Here is a copy of the report about the video.

Thanks again for writing,
Jamie Gold
Readers’ 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 Gold
Readers’ Representative

A perfect example of the utter arrogance of the media, and the contempt in which they hold their readers. They’re very aware that video has an immediacy and power that mere words do not; that’s why they’re suppressing it.

And it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that there’s more to that video than they reported.

[More]