Here's what I don't understand - the LA Times has already done one story based on the tape.
Why not two?
It's hard to believe the person who gave them the tape for the first story had the wit to realize many years later it would be relevant again.
I understand the granted request about not releasing the actual tape - and if they gave their word, they should keep it. But there's no way they can't write another story about the tape.
They could release a transcript of the tape with no harm done at all to their source.
That indicates conclusively it’s not protecting their source they’re worried about, it’s what those attending the dinner were saying.