[Rhodes22-list] Politics - Journalism

[Brad Haslett]

It is just a tape of a party.  Why not show it and let the people decide?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/29/mccain-slams-la-times-double-standard-withholding-obama-khalidi-tape/

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/29/politics/fromtheroad/entry4555772.shtml

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1032503.html

What's to hide?

Brad

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Brad Haslett <flybrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> Who is Rashad Khalidi and why does he matter?  Oh, he's just another
> garden variety former terrorist sympathizer (PLO) in education from
> Chicago. Sound familiar? This information is out there in both Corsi
> and Fredesso's book.  The LA Times did a story on him this past April
> -
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story
>
> The LA Times reporter also has a video tape of the event that he won't
> release (refusing as late as yesterday).  How much harm could there be
> in watching a tape of a going away party?  None, unless you want to
> hide hanging with Bill Ayers at a "Jew bash".  Nothing to see here
> folks, keep moving!
>
> I've been following this story for months and not one MSM outlet shows
> any interest.  In the tank?  Naaaaah!
>
> Brad
>
> --------------------------
>
> Election 2008: Objective journalism the loser
> By Michael Graham  |   Tuesday, October 28, 2008  |
> http://www.bostonherald.com  |  Letters to the Editor
>
> Did you see that amazing video obtained by the Los Angeles Times of
> Sen. Barack Obama toasting a prominent former PLO member at an Arab
> American Action Network meeting in 2003? The video in which Obama
> gives Yasser Arafat's frontman a warm embrace, as Bill Ayers look on?
>
> You haven't seen it? Me, neither. The Los Angeles Times refuses to release it.
>
> And so an incriminating video of Obama literally "palling around" with
> PLO supporters becomes one more nail in the coffin of "objective
> journalism."
>
> Alas, the obit for objective reporting has been buried - along with
> the stories about Obama's 2001 support for court-imposed
> "redistribution of wealth" and Joe Biden's latest gaffe.
>
> For the record (that's J-school talk for "I actually know what I'm
> talking about for a change"), I am not a journalist. I'm an opinion
> writer and talk show host. But I admire reporters tremendously. I
> married one. My oldest son is named for the great H. L. Mencken.
>
> So it is particularly heartbreaking for me to see the death of
> objective journalism. And believe me - it is stone cold dead.
> Sacrificed on the altar of service to Barack Obama.
>
> Former New York Times [NYT] columnist and veteran newspaperman Michael
> Malone knows it.
>
> "I've begun - for the first time in my adult life - to be embarrassed
> to admit what I do for a living," he said.
>
> Malone is disturbed by the "shameless support" journalists have been
> giving the Obama campaign. Where's the hardball coverage for Obama
> they give McCain? Instead, journalists are "actively serving as attack
> dogs for the [Obama/Biden] ticket."
>
> "That isn't Sen. Obama's fault," Malone points out. He blames the
> media, whose job it is to give Obama a thorough vetting "and has
> systematically refused to do so."
>
> This is hardly news to regular readers of the Boston Globe-Democrat,
> or viewers of MS-We-Hate-Bush. But when the Associated Press starts
> adding Kool-Aid at the water cooler, we readers are in real trouble.
>
> Jay Newton-Small, a longtime AP reporter, points out in a column in
> the Washington Post that her old employer has begun practicing
> "accountability journalism," which is a media euphemism for "picking
> the good guys and the bad guys."
>
> "Some of the most eyebrow-raising stories this presidential-election
> cycle have come from a surprising source: the stodgy old AP,"
> Newton-Small wrote.
>
> The AP, once the gold standard of unbiased "hard news," is now just
> another voice in the Spin Room.
>
> Newton-Small asks:
>
> "When the news organization entrusted with calling elections sets off
> down the slippery slope of news analysis, it's hard not to wonder: Is
> the journalism world losing its North Star, the one source that could
> be relied upon to provide 'Just the facts, ma'am' ?"
>
> Facts? Who needs 'em, when we've got Obama's magic tax plan to promote
> and an uppity Alaska governor to trash?
>
> At the risk of violating union rules, allow me to do a bit of
> reporting: A new study by the Pew Research Center found that, while 71
> percent of Obama's recent media coverage has been "positive" or
> "neutral," almost 60 percent of McCain's coverage over the same period
> has been "decidedly negative."
>
> And how much positive coverage did the media give McCain? Fourteen percent.
>
> The American people have figured this out.
>
> "By a margin of 70 percent to 9 percent," another Pew study reported,
> "Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain,
> win on Nov. 4."
>
> The percentage of Americans who rate reporters as objective and not
> favoring either candidate? Eight percent.
>
> My friends in the Partisan Press, your reputation has now fallen lower
> than both President Bush (25 percent) and the Democratic Congress (18
> percent). Journalistic integrity now ranks along side communicable
> diseases and nuclear mishaps.
>
> Obama will likely be the next president. He will use that power to do
> things both good and bad. But when Americans look for tough, honest
> journalists to challenge him, where will we find them?
>
> Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/letters/view.bg?articleid=1128260
>