[$tinkle]

unless you read/view msnbc to the exclusion of all else, i think you know what this is about

 

[Westy]

I don't watch MSNBC at all and have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I don't watch MSNBC at all and have no idea what you are talking about.

I think he's tired of Fox bashing Osama, I mean Obama.

 

[$tinkle]

I don't watch MSNBC at all and have no idea what you are talking about.

you don't read scrappleface?

also, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards:

Like many broader ethical systems, journalism ethics include the principle of "limitation of harm." This often involves the withholding of certain details from reports such as the names of minor children, crime victims' names or information not materially related to particular news reports release of which might, for example, harm someone's reputation.

 

[vibiker]

Not sure if this is a legit offer, but let's see if money talks...
http://www.urbanconservative.com/2008/10/28/150000-reward-for-the-release-of-the-obama-video-by-the-los-angeles-times/

 

[$tinkle]

i think if the offer were $149,999.99 i'd take it, otherwise i'd end up giving all of it back in taxes to obama, who would then use it to convert my daughter to islam

 

[N8 v2.0]

lolerzcoasterzz!!!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,5458024.story

 

[$tinkle]

 

[N8 v2.0]

obviously the correct poll answer is #2.

derrr

 

[$tinkle]

obviously the correct poll answer is #2.

derrr

that's what freedom d'presse is all about

 

[Plummit]

lolerzcoasterzz!!!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,5458024.story

Is this the part of the story you're so excited about?

The original article said that Obama's friendships with Palestinian Americans in Chicago and his presence at Palestinian community events had led some to think he was sympathetic to the Palestinian viewpoint on Middle East politics. Obama publicly expresses a pro-Israel viewpoint that pleases many Jewish leaders.

In reporting on Obama's presence at the dinner for Khalidi, the article noted that some speakers expressed anger at Israel and at U.S. foreign policy, but that Obama in his comments called for finding common ground.

It said that Khalidi in the 1970s often spoke to reporters on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi later lived near Obama while teaching at the University of Chicago. He is now a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University in New York.

Really?? I guess if I were you, I'd hope that the tape doesn't come out. It's bound to be far more controversial and allow McPhailin' to make more political hay of it than if it actually gets released. Unless, of course, you're hoping that McCain fails and you can vote for Phailin' in '12 or '16? Win or Lose, Many See Palin as Future of Party... NYT

 

[$tinkle]

looks like they're not abiding by even these basic standards

Code of Ethics

Being a globally oriented media service, Al Jazeera has adopted the following code of ethics in pursuance of the vision and mission it has set for itself:

1. Adhere to the journalistic values of honesty, courage, fairness, balance, independence, credibility and diversity, giving no priority to commercial or political considerations over professional ones.

3. Treat our audiences with due respect and address every issue or story with due attention to present a clear, factual and accurate picture while giving full consideration to the feelings of victims of crime, war, persecution and disaster, their relatives and our viewers, and to individual privacy and public decorum.

8. Observe transparency in dealing with news and news sources while adhering to internationally established practices concerning the rights of these sources.

#8 is especially telling, considering this previous latimes piece

 

[SkaredShtles]

I don't watch MSNBC at all and have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[$tinkle]

Really?? I guess if I were you, I'd hope that the tape doesn't come out.

i'm sure it would just as benign as this:

from back in april 2008

At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

some dude on some blog has passed along this claim

Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

It would be really controversial if it got out. That's why they will not even let a transcript get out.

is this another bush nat'l guard story (i.e., fabrication), or just another "look who's palling around with terr'ists" red herring?

also, be careful cnn, your spine is showing

 

[sanjuro]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,5458024.story

"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."

 

[$tinkle]

you don't seriously believe someone gives a tape to the press so they'll suppress it, do you? "here's something that will effect the voters' opinion of john mccain; please, please, please don't show it"

further reading: A Palin Double Standard? - LATimes

objective journalism indeed

 

[stevew]

depends on the candidate.

 

[ohio]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,5458024.story

egg-zachary.

I'm looking for the poll option which is when the material was provided under conditions that it be kept confidential. I don't see this issue as any different than confidential/anonymous sources. If the LA Times breaks the promise and releases it, they have ruined their chances of ever obtaining material under similar circumstances in the future.

The unfortunate thing is that not releasing it may be just as bad for Obama as releasing it. McCain is already making hay from it, and since no one knows exactly what it is, imaginations can run wild. I heard he makes out with Arafat before screaming "death to the infidels! ALALALALALALALALALALAAA!"

 

[$tinkle]

i had no problem finding the transcript of trent lott toasting strom thurmond on the latimes website; same for arnold swarzenegger's comments about some hot latina chic, and so on...

 

[Plummit]

i'm sure it would just as benign as this:

You mean like Bush and other world leaders have said repeatedly?

President Bush said Thursday that a Mideast peace deal would require "painful concessions" on both sides as well as an end to the "occupation" of Arab land by the Israeli military.

from back in april 2008some dude on some blog has passed along this claimis this another bush nat'l guard story (i.e., fabrication), or just another "look who's palling around with terr'ists" red herring?

And I heard he said he'd "wipe Israel off the map!" or was that Achminijad??? So maybe that's why Obama is so eager to meet with him?!?!

 

[jimmydean]

I guess I will never understand why people get all up in arms about it. I know not to listen to everything said on any "news" show, but not all people are that intelligent. I know way too many people that hang on every word some talking head spews. Radio, TV, or book, it doesn't matter.

I say it all falls under freedom of speech. After watching Outfoxed it only helped prove my point.

 

[$tinkle]

egg-zachary.

I'm looking for the poll option which is when the material was provided under conditions that it be kept confidential. I don't see this issue as any different than confidential/anonymous sources. If the LA Times breaks the promise and releases it, they have ruined their chances of ever obtaining material under similar circumstances in the future.

ed: option #1 is what you're looking for.

so journalistic standards can be bought & sold? it's all about the bottom line?

you can't seriously think a suspicious wink&nod "promise" should trump objective reporting, do you? aren't you in the least bit intellectually curious behind the validity of that claim? i must observe your unusual lack of skepticism is suspect.

The unfortunate thing is that not releasing it may be just as bad for Obama as releasing it. McCain is already making hay from it, and since no one knows exactly what it is, imaginations can run wild. I heard he makes out with Arafat before screaming "death to the infidels! ALALALALALALALALALALAAA!"

true, true.

 

[narlus]

Not sure if this is a legit offer, but let's see if money talks...
http://www.urbanconservative.com/2008/10/28/150000-reward-for-the-release-of-the-obama-video-by-the-los-angeles-times/

Aston Grimaldi II?

is that name a real one, or a porn star name?

 

[jimmydean]

What about news organizations that edit a tape, or show only a portion of the tape so the shown portion is taken out of context?

Is that worse than not showing a tap at all?

 

[$tinkle]

lack of objectivity == fail

that lack of ethics is left to campaigns

 

[jimmydean]

I'm going to start paying more attention to TMZ, they have their finger on the pulse of society today.

 

[$tinkle]

http://www.google.com/search?q=palin+site:tmz.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[ohio]

ed: option #1 is what you're looking for.

so journalistic standards can be bought & sold? it's all about the bottom line?

you can't seriously think a suspicious wink&nod "promise" should trump objective reporting, do you? aren't you in the least bit intellectually curious behind the validity of that claim? i must observe your unusual lack of skepticism is suspect.
true, true.

It's not about bottom line, it's about preserving access to information that is valuable for journalistic reasons (which incidentally may also be monetary reasons, but are first and foremost journalistic). The other examples you cite were not sourced under the same conditions to my knowledge. In this case, as far as we know, the source would not have provided the video if he/she believed it would be shared. LA Times could have refused the condition and would have nothing; they accepted the condition and we at least now know the video exists. If someone's life were in imminent danger, I would expect them to provide the tape to the authorities... aside from that, I don't expect them to release it unless under subpoena or with the permission of the source.

I'm not skeptical... my best guess is that the quotations claimed are accurate ("god-given right", "genocide" etc.). *Maybe* I'm less up in arms, because despite being a Jew I believe those statements to be true. Both sides have committed atrocities in this conflict, and I have little problem with a presidential candidate saying so. I certainly have no problem with a state legislator saying so.

 

[$tinkle]

In this case, as far as we know, the source would not have provided the video if he/she believed it would be shared. LA Times could have refused the condition and would have nothing; they accepted the condition and we at least now know the video exists.

if i didn't want something to get out, i would start with me. i would bury it. i would hide it. i would give it a viking funeral. i would do anything short of going to the press.

why in the world would someone go to the town crier for a matter of extremely delicate discretion? aren't you in the least bit curious?

here's a ghey gif to distract you further:

 

[N8 v2.0]

if i didn't want something to get out, i would start with me. i would bury it. i would hide it. i would give it a viking funeral. i would do anything short of going to the press.

Beau Geste: A Viking funeral...Digby, will you set fire to me and bury me at sea?

Digby Geste: Well, alright...but not until you're dead.

 

[$tinkle]

a guest list for this event has been partially compiled

Those who attended (the guest list):
1. AAAN (Arab American Action Network)
2. Not In My Name
3. Ali Abunimah (a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, who met Obama in 2000)
4. Bernadine Dorhn and Bill Ayers
5. Barack Obama
6. Mayor of Chicago Richard Daley
7. Rashid Khalidi
8. Mona Khalidi
9. Gihad Ali, a Palestinian spoken word poet
10. NPR Worldview host Jerome McDonnell (not McDonald as written in the e-mail)
11. Camilia Odeh (director of SWYC Southwest Youth Collaborative)
12. Sanabel debka troupe (traditional Palestinian dance group)
13. Hatem Abudayyeh
14. Others - Up to 50 to 500, possibly 600 guests (based on Burbank Manor's seating capacity capabilities)

Possible attendees (unconfirmed, and undocumented):
1. Michelle Obama
2. Toni Rezko (Rezko was a donor to one of Rashid's University programs)
3. Edward Said
4. Louis Farrakhan
5. Nation of Islam (NOI)

i love this pic of michelle before her claire huxtable makover:

 

[jimmydean]

Sean Hanity makes me want to punch babies.

I love the title. "The Real Obama: Another Terrorist"

 

[jimmydean]

"It must be nice for a candidate to have major news organizations looking out for their best interests like that. Politicians would love to have a pet newspaper of their very own,"

Has nobody told her about Fox News?

 

[$tinkle]

Has nobody told her about Fox News?

while fox does favor her, i'm sure if there was video showing caylee anthony was hidden in her uterus, greta van sustren would be all up in it.

with a camera crew

 

[johnbryanpeters]

lack of objectivity == fail

that lack of ethics is left to campaigns

Having the ideal of objectivity is admirable. However, human beings do not process information objectively, so any effort to prepare and present information, including news, objectively is pretty much doomed from the get-go.

I think that people who convince themselves that they can be objective are the most dangerous. They fail to pay attention to whether their ideas apply sufficiently well to the world around them, having once been convinced that their ideas are "correct".

 

[$tinkle]

point is, when an opportunity to be objective (or at least disclose fully) is willfully shunned, that's when a news organization should be reorganized.

it's why foxnews uses so much red in their logos & bannering

 

[jimmydean]

point is, when an opportunity to be objective (or at least disclose fully) is willfully shunned, that's when a news organization should be reorganized.

it's why foxnews uses so much red in their logos & bannering

There are so many instances of Fox News editing (or using edited) pictures, video, and audio. Is that not as bad, if not worse than simply withholding?

I would rather them not show it rather than show a skewed version of it to be misconstrued.

 

[$tinkle]

wow. i just found some hard-hitting journalism in this interview w/ allah's messenger:
http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=158707

1.) Your presidential campaign may go down as the most organized in history. Yet the polls remain tight in Missouri. In the last seven days what else can you say to sway undecided and McCain leaning Missouri voters?

3.) Who has helped your campaign more; Missouri U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill or Oprah?

4.) What was it like when you were in St. Louis in front 100,000 people? What were you thinking as you looked out from the Arch to the Old Court House and beyond?

if i didn't know any better, i'd say she was vying for a position in the w.h. press corp come jan 20th

"courage"

 

[Plummit]

Oooops again, McCain chaired a group that funded Khalidi in the 1990's. Still want the tape?

We can argue about the responsibility of the press to it's readership vs. it's responsibility to its sources, and/or the public's responsibility and culpability in making a news agency guilty of distortions or omissions a commercially viable enterprise ad infinitum, but don't you think McCain ought to vet these attacks more thoroughly? Or are they just red meat for the already decideds?

In regards to Khalidi, however, the guilt-by-association game burns John McCain as well.

During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.

A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF.)

The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."

Of course, there's seemingly nothing objectionable with McCain's organization helping a Palestinian group conduct research in the West Bank or Gaza. But it does suggest that McCain could have some of his own explaining to do as he tries to make hay out of Khalidi's ties to Obama.

 

[$tinkle]

and in another example, cnn should fess up

ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (CNN) -- With 10 days until Election Day, long-brewing tensions between GOP vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin and key aides to Sen. John McCain have become so intense, they are spilling out in public, sources say.

Several McCain advisers have suggested to CNN that they have become increasingly frustrated with what one aide described as Palin "going rogue."

A Palin associate, however, said the candidate is simply trying to "bust free" of what she believes was a damaging and mismanaged roll-out.

McCain sources say Palin has gone off-message several times, and they privately wonder whether the incidents were deliberate. They cited an instance in which she labeled robocalls --

<and on & on>

who are these "sources"?