Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Except that the onus is on the Star to prove its true, and not on Ford to defend himself without seeing the proof.
Without the video in hand that can be shown then the whole story is questionable.
For them to say that Ford has to answer questions, I think his first answer is, go buy the video and show it to me, then I'll answer any questions.
The burden of proof is on the accuser every time.
The Star is a failing paper that's desperate for anything that will save its failing subscription base and falling dollars, the fact that they went whole hog into this without having the video in hands just feels desperate and sleazy, and like I said, Rob Ford is an a$$, but if the Star is going to destroy his career and his life they'd better have way more then, but reporters saw it.
Its not protecting a source anymore, we know from the Gawker who has the video and how much their asking for, the video tape is not something that can be protected by confidentiality rules.
If I was the person with the video I'd double down and raise my price on the video with the caveat that if I don't get the money, I burn it, because without it, the Star and probably Gawkers owners are sued into oblivion.
|
Two, not one, reporters viewed the video, each making notes independently. No accident having two sets of eyes on it.
The wording of the report was, without doubt, vetted by the Star legal team before publication and contains a lot of ambiguity.
The Star handled it well.
Not even sure The Gawker guy is in trouble.
I do know Ford is in trouble. There isn't a single news source in Canada and most in the USA that hasn't reported the substance of this.
Th tape itself isn't worth much money now.
My two cents.
Cowperson