To release or not release

By: Adrian Aitken



Earlier today in class we discussed ethics and decency in the news and what is appropriate to print. Eventually the choice comes down to what the publisher wants which is acceptable because it is their paper. What if a publisher refuses to release something with no good reasons?



This is the case with the L.A. Times. A video was submitted to the Times with Barack Obama and the alleged terrorist Rashid Khalidi which captured the two at a party. Supposedly the video contains Obama praising Khalidi for racial remarks he made along with other statements which contradict Obama's "views".



I don't understand why the publisher continues to release the video. At this point I see two outcomes of showing the video to the public. One is that Barack is guilty and he loses many voters. Two, the video contains none of the above allegations and pressure is relieved off of the Times, Obama, and Khalidi.

I believe it is the responsibility of the publisher to release such crucial information especially so close to elections. Every second the tape is withheld I become more wary of Obama. Plus the Times are only making it seem that there in fact is something to hide from the masses.