| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| So let's see if we have this straight... |
| 2008-10-29 |
| Orrin Judd comments on the LAT's suppression of the Obama tape: ...on the one hand the press maintains that its obligation to publish that which is newsworthy is so weighty that it even trumps national security and the possibility that lives would be endangered, but, on the other hand, now asks us to accept that a paper's promise is more important than newsworthiness? So, unless my math is screwy, they place self-interest above the national interest and human life? No? |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #15 This is really *yawn* We already have the list of international supporters for Sen. Obama. Said list includes the head of every terrorist nation and organization that's been in the news in the past year. If that won't make a difference, why would airing this mystery tape? |
| Posted by: DLR 2008-10-29 23:17 |
| #14 If an individual had a tape that could damage the electability of a messiah, then they might want to turn it over to a large public institution, in trust of course, anonymously, to avoid getting measured for those famous Windy City Concrete Sneakers™. And that large public (but very unprofitable) institution might wish to get free publicity If a certain campaign had about $600mil to spend, it could probably find seven figure cash to spend on, say, polling research in California And said campaign might even suggest future considerations to the institution for 'protecting' such documentation. Perhaps a Doctrine to regulate internet fairness, so that large public (but very unprofitable) institutions would not have to compete with pajama clad So yeah, self-interest would be a strong motivator to all involved. |
| Posted by: Skunky Glins 5*** 2008-10-29 22:09 |
| #13 At some point, when are these people (NYT, LAT CBS etc.) held accountable to the public for their attempts at manipulating elections? Government won't do a thing against them because more than half of the government is interested in their continued complicity. Some time in the future, I fear we'll see real violence done to some of these characters, and when that starts, I don't think we'll ever be the same. |
| Posted by: Rob06 2008-10-29 16:08 |
| #12 "Obama, his wife, and Bill Ayers manufacturing Zyklon B in their basement," I've seen the video of this.... |
| Posted by: Carbon Monoxide 2008-10-29 15:03 |
| #11 I imagine another person is visible in the tape that the tape's owner doesn't want shown publicly. Steve White. I thought it was Ben Franklin said that. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr151663.html |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-10-29 11:47 |
| #10 As Hitchcock once said: three can keep a secret if two are dead. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-10-29 11:38 |
| #9 Why would a source not have a copy of the tape. There is a lot of money floating around out there, and I predict we see the tape. Obama is already trying to deflect it, and he sure wants a lot of people to vote early. |
| Posted by: bman 2008-10-29 11:31 |
| #8 Come on guys give them a break.... They had to 'STOP THE PRESSES!' in order to report on Sarah's shoes. /SARC |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-10-29 11:12 |
| #7 You can bet that if the LA Times had a tape on McCain, it would have been out for public consumption faster than yesterday. The LA and NY Times are a bunch of scurrilous rats trying to rig the election by withholding information and printing their biases as truth. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-10-29 11:08 |
| #6 The only secrets to be kept are the amount of money that changed hands and the 'who did it' of the transfer. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-10-29 10:43 |
| #5 As someone noted, the response makes little sense. If the source wanted the tape kept a secret, why give it to a loud-mouthed newspaper jonesin' for a cash infusion? Burning it would have kept the secret a lot better. |
| Posted by: mojo 2008-10-29 10:31 |
| #4 Answer: Source to LAT. Oh by the way, we filmed that event. I got it. You want it? Yes, I DO like Maserati sports cars. Please keep my name out of it. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-10-29 09:47 |
| #3 Makes no sense - why would a source in the first place give a tape of something very newsworthy to the LAT & then ask them not to show it? The LAT couldn't be lying could they? |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2008-10-29 09:19 |
| #2 Nuwt had it right yesterday when he said, "Lay $ 50,000. out there and the tape will mysteriously appear on your desk the next day." Unfortunately, I don't think it would make any difference if you had Obama his wife, and Bill Ayers manufacturing Zyklon B in their basement, the left would still maintain his innocence and qualification to be president. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-10-29 09:00 |
| #1 Yes but we had to be 'entertained' by every rumor and smack about Palin within a week of her nomination and personal data about Joe within two days. All so newsworthy. /sarcasm off |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-10-29 08:53 |