I don't think heads roll at The Star regarding this. It's not like the one reporter who seen the video is just posting what he saw without having it verified. From what I understand with journalists who hide behind sources and other such hidden people, is that their bosses know who those sources are and actually contact them to verify that the story/rumor is true. In this case with The Star sitting on it, you would assume that the editor checked multiple sources that it was apparently true. With Gawker posting it first, The Star simply followed suit. Just yesterday they posted the stupid Rob Ford video of him putting magnets on cars - almost like a warmup. Perhaps they had a heads up that Gawker was going to publish the story and they simply didn't want to appear to be on the witch hunt. I for one think they do have it in for Ford, but lets be really honest - Ford is the consumate f-up, who has no social common sense. He gets busted for everything because he doesn't think ahead. The only two things I give him credit for is not spending like a drunken sailor like so many in his position do, and secondly, finally deciding to expand the subway system which was long overdue. Aside from that, he can't do anything without embarrassing himself.
The best twitter quote this most recent mess up has brought has been something like, "Mayor Rob Ford has now taken his Chris Farley impression too far" .
The Following User Says Thank You to bluejays For This Useful Post:
I don't think heads roll at The Star regarding this. It's not like the one reporter who seen the video is just posting what he saw without having it verified. From what I understand with journalists who hide behind sources and other such hidden people, is that their bosses know who those sources are and actually contact them to verify that the story/rumor is true. In this case with The Star sitting on it, you would assume that the editor checked multiple sources that it was apparently true. With Gawker posting it first, The Star simply followed suit. Just yesterday they posted the stupid Rob Ford video of him putting magnets on cars - almost like a warmup. Perhaps they had a heads up that Gawker was going to publish the story and they simply didn't want to appear to be on the witch hunt. I for one think they do have it in for Ford, but lets be really honest - Ford is the consumate f-up, who has no social common sense. He gets busted for everything because he doesn't think ahead. The only two things I give him credit for is not spending like a drunken sailor like so many in his position do, and secondly, finally deciding to expand the subway system which was long overdue. Aside from that, he can't do anything without embarrassing himself.
The best twitter quote this most recent mess up has brought has been something like, "Mayor Rob Ford has now taken his Chris Farley impression too far" .
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$$, but if the Star is going to destroy his career and his life they'd better have way more then, but reporters saw it.
Its not protecting a source anymore, we know from the Gawker who has the video and how much their asking for, the video tape is not something that can be protected by confidentiality rules.
If I was the person with the video I'd double down and raise my price on the video with the caveat that if I don't get the money, I burn it, because without it, the Star and probably Gawkers owners are sued into oblivion.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Well, if Ford is going to sue the Star and Gawker into oblivion, he will first have to dump whoever wrote that cease and desist letter to Gawker and hire someone competent to represent him.
I mean the whole thing is bizarre and Rob Ford courts controversy wherever he goes.
I don't care if Rob Ford stays on as mayor, he's good for entertainment.
However if we took the same scenario with our esteemed mayor in purple replacing ford, and the paper being the sun, I bet the numbers on each side of the argument swings significantly.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Except that the onus is on the Star to prove its true, and not on Ford to defend himself without seeing the proof.
Without the video in hand that can be shown then the whole story is questionable.
For them to say that Ford has to answer questions, I think his first answer is, go buy the video and show it to me, then I'll answer any questions.
The burden of proof is on the accuser every time.
The Star is a failing paper that's desperate for anything that will save its failing subscription base and falling dollars, the fact that they went whole hog into this without having the video in hands just feels desperate and sleazy, and like I said, Rob Ford is an a$$, 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.
No kidding. $100k for the video would seem like peanuts if The Star is planning on coming out with higher subscription and advertising targets from all this hoopola. If they don't get the video soon, their hail mary throw is going to doom them into oblivion.
Please note that my keyboard ran out of green ink and does not imply that conspiracy theory believers are whack jobs, nor Torontonians are blundering idiots.
For some posters in the simplest terms
It was a Joke
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
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
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
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
I don't often disagree with you, its hearsay right now, the actual damning physical evidence hasn't been seen by anyone but the two reporters.
When it comes to Rob Ford, the Star isn't exactly what you'd call an unbiased media source.
The video is still worth a lot because right now the story is unsubstantiated juicy gossip started by a newspaper that has an axe to grind with anything right of the political spectrum and has had a back and forth with the mayor at the center of this issue. The video moves it from gossip to fact.
Right now if this was a trial would the reporters testimony stand up in court? Probably not, the judge would want the video bought forward. It should be the same in this type of situation. Especially when it threatens to completely destroy a person.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I don't often disagree with you, its hearsay right now, the actual damning physical evidence hasn't been seen by anyone but the two reporters.
When it comes to Rob Ford, the Star isn't exactly what you'd call an unbiased media source.
The video is still worth a lot because right now the story is unsubstantiated juicy gossip started by a newspaper that has an axe to grind with anything right of the political spectrum and has had a back and forth with the mayor at the center of this issue. The video moves it from gossip to fact.
Right now if this was a trial would the reporters testimony stand up in court? Probably not, the judge would want the video bought forward. It should be the same in this type of situation. Especially when it threatens to completely destroy a person.
You are missing a central point. The Toronto Star reporters haven't claimed as fact that Ford is in the tape.
They witnessed something and described their impressions within the context of the earlier Gawker report. Completely legit.
You can be assured anything that appeared in print was vetted by the Star legal team first.
Ford isn't worth the bother of paying for the tape. I mean that in the literal sense. If it were Prince Harry, maybe that's a different conversation.
Time will tell but I would say you'll see no lawsuit because Ford wants it to die and fast.
And it's probably him.
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
Only when irrefutable proof has arisen has Ford admitted to his wrongdoing, like in 2010, when then-councillor Ford flatly denied old DUI and drug charges in the middle of the election campaign, until confronted with police reports. Or, back in 2006, when Ford lied about even having been at a hockey game, which he was actually ejected from after drunkenly disabusing to patrons. Only irrefutable evidence – including a business card he’d handed out – made him apologize.
Quote:
This story is still unproven. But the allegations against Rob Ford are serious and credible.
The mayor lacks the credibility to keep us suspended like this. Rob Ford needs to answer immediately, and restore some reality to a city that, since his election, has been floating steadily away from it.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
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
Things I know.
1. Said paper has axe to grind.
2. Said paper allowed reporter to publish false news of Pat Burn's death.
3. The news outlet with the highest integrity in the industry 60 minutes allowed one of the most esteemed news icons ever to report a false story.
I don't disagree probably is Ford. However, we can't let our brick and mortar news slide into the Perez Hilton levels of proof. It's going to bring us right back to the mid-1800's news quality if we do.
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.
Bill Maher mentioned Ford and the crack smoking allegations in his opening monologue tonight. He said he has been accused of smoking crack with "Somali drug lords". Didn't say much else but I found it amusing it he mentioned it at all.
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
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.
There is a risk this will backfire on the anti Ford crowd. My first reaction to the story was disappointment that the uber aggressive "liberals" who are intolerant of any fiscal conservatism have sunk to a new low with this allegation.
Now after reading te news reports on the subject, i still see no proof. I do not consider drug dealers the most credible people, and the only person i see asking for the tape to be released is Ford's representative. Release the tape, let me see it, i will make my own conclusion.
Until then i shake my head at how excited people are to believe the word of a crack dealer.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
.
