Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton continues to withhold transcripts of her paid speeches to corporations and banks, and she probably will continue to do so as long as possible. While she likely said nothing irresponsible or untrue, her refusal to release the transcripts probably reflects her campaign’s realization that, as the Democratic Party’s base shifts ever farther to the left, it frowns upon any interaction with those who actually generate money or provide jobs.
The irony is that a print reporter has at least some of the transcripts, at least according to MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski. Why won’t that anonymous reporter release them? Perhaps he or she is simply working on a bombshell story. If true, however, it is doubtful it would take so long to publish. After all, a story on Wall Street speeches doesn’t require snooping around in foreign capitals or war zones.
Hillary Clinton speaks at a rally in Las Vegas, Nevada, February 19, 2016. REUTERS/David Becker.
More likely there are other motives. That a reporter might have the transcripts but not release them undermines public trust in journalists. It reaffirms the notion that many in the press seek to filter — rather than report — news, and to protect those on one side of the debate either out of ideology or perhaps the desire to win personal favor. After all, not only are many journalists working for mainstream and flagship publications unabashed Democrats, but several are also ambitious, as the number of those who used their journalistic platforms as a springboard into the Obama administration reflects.
That said, there is precedent for successfully holding information that represents a broader public interest until headlines move on. During his initial campaign for the presidency, word spread that Barack Obama had once not only attended a farewell dinner for University of Chicago historian (and former PLO Beirut Office spokesman) Rashid Khalidi as he departed for Columbia University, but had also given a speech which may have reflected a view sympathetic to Khalidi’s world vision — that is, a pronounced hostility to Israel as well as America’s policies in the Middle East. The Los Angeles Times reportedly had acquired a copy of that speech on videotape but refused to release it, in effect shielding what appeared to be its preferred candidate ahead of a tough primary and general election fight. The paper’s hypocrisy was even more apparent years later when its editors defended its decision to publish photos that might incite greater violence in Afghanistan by declaring, “At the end of the day, our job is to publish information that our readers need to make informed decisions.”
Perhaps so many Americans and Middle Eastern states would not have been surprised by the radical revisions Obama has sought to make to US policy in the Middle East had the videotape of Obama’s remarks — still secret to this day — been made public. Let us hope that on the question of Clinton’s transcripts — innocent or not — the spirit of transparency will not once again be lost to more cynical concerns among the Fourth Estate.
from – Latest Content http://ift.tt/1VCmm5V
0 التعليقات:
Post a Comment