The Los Angeles Times, like most major media outlets, covered the leak of a video in which Mitt Romney speaks candidly to supporters about his beliefs regarding the economy and the Middle East peace process.
The video has thrown the Romney campaign off-track and undercut Romney’s outreach to the elderly and the struggling middle class. Journalists and editorialists have reacted almost with glee as they construct an unflattering image of the “real Mitt Romney.”
While the Los Angeles Times should not be faulted for covering what has become a national story, the juxtaposition of its Romney video coverage with its refusal to release an equally embarrassing video of Barack Obama feting former PLO Beirut spokesman and University of Chicago historian Rashid Khalidi is telling. In the video taken at a goodbye party as his friend departed for a new post at Columbia University, Obama reportedly talked perhaps too candidly about his views of the Middle East. That the Los Angeles Times refuses to release the video shows complete and utter hypocrisy.
Further underlying the Los Angeles Times‘s partisanship was its explanation when, despite warnings that its actions could kill American soldiers, it published two-year-old photos of American soldiers mistreating the corpses of Taliban fighters. As the editors explained, “At the end of the day, our job is to publish information that our readers need to make informed decisions.” Apparently, that is only true if the editors believe the informed decisions will support the politics in the newsroom of the Los Angeles Times.
Obama is no lover of Israel.
Obama would throw Israel under the bus to gain favor from the Arabs in the middle east. I am sick and tired of the Lame Stream Media being in the tank for Obama.
Obama would throw Israel under the bus to gain favor with the neighbors DOG.
Only a clueless neocon could regard Khalidi as equally important as Romney's recent remarks about the "forty seven percenters?" n nHe is an obscure Professor of Modern Arab Studies; who cares what Obama said about him back in 2003?
Obviously, the LA Times feels otherwise or it would not be refusing to release the video. So I guess you would aggree that the video should be released by the LA Times based on your assertion that no one cares what Obama said about him. Am I correct?
Obama's words are not being censored because of what he said about Khalidi. It's about his antipathy for Israel and his fawning over Islam. To be re-elected, those facts about Obama need to be concealed from voters. And they will be; Obama's water-carriers and butt-boys will do ANYTHING to protect their idol. Fairness? Getting all the useful facts on the table? Not the dinosaur media's job, except when it will hurt conservatives. Then, they'll print anything, true or not. n nJust look at most of the current "polls" circulated by the mainstream press. They are cooked and massaged to the max, to make it look like Obama's ahead. The few honest, carefully and realistically crafted polls show a tie or Romney in the lead. Those polls aren't printed by the likes of the LA Times, who know their job in the Obama campaign and stick to it faithfully.
Sour grapes. Seriously, it shows the weakness of the Jewish community, and Jewish conservatives in general, that we can't get a copy of the Khalid video. Romney needs to go out and win the election.
Peter Wallsten, the LA times reporter who saw the video, is now at the Wall Street Journal. Does anyone know people at the Journal who could lean on him a bit?