Not that gutter-dwellers like Limbaugh, Palin/McCain and our own dear Mr. Riginslimer --(tip of the hat to Ebbie for that felicitous formulation)-- would have any interest, but for the rest of us--that is, those interested in more than one side of a story, and in facts and logic, rather than a steady diet of sewage, here's a different perspective:

Source: LA Times 30 Oct 2008


"The reporter's editor said the paper would have preferred to be able to post the video on its website, but could not get the source to agree".

"If we had not reached this agreement, we would not have had access to this tape at all."

Further, the article goes on to point out that there are both legal and ethical reasons for holding to the agreement.

The obvious first argument is that if the reporter wants sources to agree to supply him in the future, he'd best keep his word. Otherwise his sources will clam up.

Secondly, as the quote above points out, without the agreement, there would have been no article, since the source would not have provided the tape. Therefore the public would have had no information. That, I suppose, would be preferable to Mr. Riginslimer--since somehow I suspect that the public's right to know is not actually his #1 priority. Further up the scale for Mr. Hypocrite is just possibly his desire to smear Obama one more time.

And lastly there is the fact that per the 30 Oct 2008 LA Times article: "In 1991 the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the media from breach-of-contract claims by sources with whom it makes confidentiality agreements".

So it seems that for Mr. Riginslimer's sacred "right to know", the LA Times would be putting itself in jeopardy.

Somehow I can see why they decline to do so for the benefit of the motley crew of filth-spewers now pressuring them.