Quote:
Originally Posted by longsuffering
Since you continue to make an issue of the credibility of the Star's reporters, what have you got to say about Rob Ford's credibility?
What makes the denials of a proven liar more credible than the story written by the 2 Star reporters?
|
Two separate issues here. The negative things you could say about Rob Ford are pretty much endless. I don't think too many people dispute that.
The other issue is that in The Star case is that it's pretty weak journalism all around. The story was half finished. You have to provide evidence to print stuff like that. A video, a screenshot of the guy smoking crack... something substantial. A couple reporters saying they saw it is close, but you have to prove its existence (i.e. you typically can't make up a source saying something, you have be able to prove the source exists and verify his/her quote if called upon).
Much like the Shane Homes/Global story a couple months ago... Global provided a video. There was always an understanding that type of politics existed in Calgary but it wasn't until a video was produced that a story could also be published (or in this instance, aired).
Personally, I look at Ford and think, "how could that guy NOT be on drugs" but that's a completely separate issue from the fact that The Star's story was pretty flimsy to begin with.
I still think, "boy, that fatty is probably on drugs"... but I don't read that story and subsequent stories and say, "yeah, now I know for sure he's Rick Jamesing his way through City Hall".