Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
Yeah the Star reports and editorials are very careful about using phrases like 'alleged' or 'it appears' at every opportunity, and note that they're unable to verify the authenticity of the video. In their editorials, they aren't condemning Ford for alleged drug use, their condemning him for failing to respond to the allegations. It's a thin line, but IMO they're being very calculated with their words.
|
Exactly, just because a legal team has vetted means nothing, as this is a pure editorial story plain and simple.
Basically two of our reporters in their subjective opinion strongly believe this is Rob Ford. There is nothing of true substance there, because it is all opinion.
Keep in mind these two are reporters, they are not forensics experts. How do we know some Russian mob hasn't doctored a video in order to make a quick and massive pay out? Crazy? more crazy than the mayor of TO smoking crack with Somali drug dealers crazy?
All I am saying is the Internet has changed the game for these slow papers to keep up. Twitter has changed the speed in which information is delivered and the cost of delivery. You know what though, as Boston bombing attests to, Twitter and the like is mostly misinformation because the bar is low or non-existent.