Khalidi Tape Cover Up: Media 'Selectively Edits' Its Ethical Standards
Thursday, 20 September 2012
Did you know that the law in the state of Florida requires two-party consent? This means that both the person recording video and the person being recorded must consent to being recorded when either person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. You know, like at a private fundraiser where the media isn’t allowed.
Furthermore, did you know that the secret video of Mitt Romney the media is currently using to try and destroy his campaign was recorded in Florida … without Mitt Romney's consent, and when he obviously had a reasonable expectation of privacy?
The reason you don’t know that is because when it comes to protecting Barack Obama, the corrupt media doesn't get all that wrapped up in the details of what is and isn't legal or ethical. The Romney video is news; it's a revealing moment from The Man Who Might Be President, and as a result we're entering day four of the super-loop the media's put the video on across every news outlet in America.
While I personally have a number of issues with the way in which the media is hyping the video and using it as a partisan weapon to protect Their Precious One, I do agree with the decision to broadcast the video. The video is news, it is revealing, and the man we're learning about is pursuing the most powerful office in the world.
You see, in my heart, I'm a small "l" liberal who, above all, cherishes the First Amendment and believes that the media should not be restricted in any way other than the obvious surrounding national security and libel. There's a bigger moral and ethical world than two party consent, especially when it comes to vetting a potential president.
I hate how the media is using the video, but regardless of the law, agree wholeheartedly that the media made the right decision in making the video public.
Which brings me to the Khalidi tape, where it seems a source is telling the media, specifically the L.A. Times, what can and can't be told about a 2003 dinner Obama attended celebrating his longtime friend, Rashid Khalidi, a one-time spokesman for terror-leader Yasser Arafat
In an article written by Peter Wallsten during the 2008 election titled, "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama," we learned of the event, that there was video of the event, and that some of the night's speakers accused Israel of terrorism and compared Jewish settlers to terror mastermind Osama bin Laden.
There's also speculation Obama lavished praise on the terror-apologist Khalidi and that Bill Ayers was in attendance. You know, the domestic terrorist Obama says was "just a guy in the neighborhood."
According to Wallsten, Obama was not one of the speakers hurling hate at the Jews and Israel, but I'd like to see that for myself. And with the Middle East on fire and the President seemingly indifferent to Israel's upcoming showdown with Iran, the people and influences a then-41 year-old Obama marinated himself in just a year before launching a national political career, is as relevant today as it was in 2008.
And yet, the same media, that as I write this is replaying the illegally obtained and selectively edited '47 percent' video of Mitt Romney for the gajillionth time, refuses to release the full Khalidi tape or provide a full description of what the tape shows.
Suddenly the L.A. Times (and the rest of the media that refuses to press the L.A. Times to release the video) is concerned with laws and ethics based on a convenient standard involving journalistic sources. Which makes one wonder if the source involved only allowed the L.A. Times access to the video if in exchange they agreed to write an article complimentary to Obama.
The undercover video of Mitt Romney was taken and disseminated and broadcast illegally. The release of the Khalidi tape, however, would violate no laws and the idea that a source can hand over something and demand that only certain portions be reported upon is the only thing that's unethical here.
Let me put it this way…
Exact same situation, but instead the video is of Mitt Romney at a celebratory dinner for David Duke.
Tell me we wouldn't have seen that by now.
The media is covering for, fighting for, and through sins of omission and commission, propagandizing for Barack Obama. This is why Breitbart News is offering a $100,000 reward for the video -- in the hopes that someone who believes in the public's right to know will come forward with the video.
In today's media environment, there is no greater career sin than violating the left-wing narrative. Therefore, anyone willing to do such a thing deserves to be rewarded.