Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Sure, and I'm with you there. If they produce a video where it appears he is smoking crack, that's obviously newsworthy. What isn't newsworthy to me is a piece about a bunch of stuff that took place 25 years ago and really has no bearing on what's going on today. That's a complete joke, regardless of whether its left or right wing. That has nothing to do with politics of defending one side in particular, its just media ethics in my view.
|
It's completely relevant to the timeliness of the topic of his brother for sure and, more to the point, the brother duo, I think, were partly campaigning on an anti-drug platform without prior admission of earlier involvement with drugs. Definitely ties in.
I'm not a fan of stories with unnamed sources and said as much several times in the hockey forum where SUN writers are notorious for the practice in their coverage of the Flames.
Here's the difference though . . . . . In the case of the Globe and Mail, while there are no named sources in the story, their legal team in the background appears to be completely comfortable exposing the business to the potential of large damages. They appear certain, if it comes to it, they'll be able to defend the newspaper from damages in the event of a libel suit. Theyre essentially daring the Ford brother to sue them. That in itself lends credibility to the unnamed sources and further credibility to the story. In the case of SUN sportswriters, what is really at risk? Pretty much absolutely nothing. Why believe them?
Still, any story with unnamed sources as the sole foundation has a credibility risk. But there are degrees of that.
Lastly, as noted by others, if this was about Nenshi you'd be laughing your butt off. Instead, its about a couple of guys where your first gut impression is to nod your head up and down like it makes sense, because of the earlier history.
This ain't going away for the Ford brothers.
Cowperson