The LA Times believes that certain leaks are OK. Leaking secret grand jury proceedings that could defame the innocent is fine. Leaking national Security Secrets are OK. But "leaking" the tape of a meeting that points to the credibility of one of the Presidential candidates is taboo?
In May 2004, The Los Angeles Times reported Secret Grand Jury Information in the "Plame CIA leak case"... In June 2006, both The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times published a story based on a leak regarding the government's pressure on SWIFT — a Brussels-based clearinghouse that exchanges transactional information between international banks — to give up information on private bank transactions as part of U.S. global anti-terror efforts.The stories drew immediate fire from the White House and Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y, then-chairman of the House Homeland Security who called the leak and subsequent publishing of the program's details treasonous.
In 2003 The LA Times ran an Editorial about why leaks are important, What Leaks Are Good Leaks? By Jack Nelson, it says in part: [snip]... "National security leaders need to understand that some leaks are good for democracy and the country even though others are bad..."
What about the need for vigilance in reporting on the people who want to LEAD the government. In holding the Rashid tapes the LA Times is substituting vigilance for promoting its own political agenda.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
LA Times: "Leaks are Important, but only if They Strengthen Our Own Political Agenda"
From Yid With Lid - H/T Atlas Shrugs:
Posted by Darrin at 10/30/2008