An interesting question posted this evening by Andrew Kaczynski:
The larger question is why a publicly-funded entity like WGBH is charging individuals for information, especially when that information gives greater context to the President's 1991 remarks? WGBH refused to give Breitbart.com the video and didn't even respond to the request for the footage -- but they'll reply to Buzzfeed and license them portions of the video? Isn't that preferential?
Additionally, if the President's embrace of Bell was unimportant, why did Buzzfeed choose not to pay the hundred bucks to license those seconds? If it wasn't a big deal, why cut it? Cut the critics off at the pass; render them unable to accuse you of once again suppressing information.
Tonight on Piers Morgan's show, Ben Smith admits that they were hurrying to try to scoop Andrew Breitbart on a story he'd been cultivating for months. Smith asked why we didn't just release the footage earlier. We didn't for two reasons which escape him: We were completing our research on the footage and secondly, Andrew passed away.
Buzzfeed's argument that PBS already aired the video is insufficient, given that PBS didn't air it uninterrupted and overdubbed the video with commentary. There were parts of Obama's speech obscured as a result, specifically "Open your hears and minds to Derrick Bell."
It's significant when we're vetting the President during an election year, don't you think, Buzzfeed?