05-24-2013, 04:24 PM
|
#401
|
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
What he should have did was answer questions. By saying refusing to take questions or even speak in complete sentences, it left everything open.
His former press secretary nails it pretty much. She is still a supporter, but she explains why his original comment was not good enough:
http://globalnews.ca/news/580807/rob...ess-secretary/
It's really not good enough to say; "It's ridiculous and that is all I am saying/", and then turning his back on questions. That's not the way a politician (especially an innocent one) should respond. |
Maybe, I'm torn on it, first instinct is that by actually answering questions on it, it gives the story longer legs and life. By acting like its completely ridiculous maybe you kill the story in the grave.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 04:29 PM
|
#402
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: SE Calgary
|
I think it is very telling that he said "I don't smoke crack" instead of the more conclusive "I don't smoke crack, and I have never smoked crack, period".
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 04:30 PM
|
#403
|
|
Norm!
|
So as an aside, I posted the Jan 19th ad from Canadianlisting. What if we, the Gawker and The Star and Ford have been made the victim of one of the greatest pranks of all time.
What's the legal shakedown that happens fromthat.
What if this was some guys who shot a fake video with a Ford look alike.
Does Ford have legal avenues?
If it was a prank, were any crimes actually broken.
This is all hypothetical
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 04:32 PM
|
#404
|
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilyfan
I think it is very telling that he said "I don't smoke crack" instead of the more conclusive "I don't smoke crack, and I have never smoked crack, period".
|
Oh just stop already.
Are we getting so stupid as a society that we are going to have to explain absolutely everything to the minute detail.
Are we going to have to start expecting 70 paragraph answers to more complex questions.
I don't smoke crack as a statement means I don't smoke crack
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 04:34 PM
|
#405
|
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
I don't think it's a coincidence that the drug dealer with the tape is unreachable, and Rob ford comes out the day after to make his statement. I'm not saying that Rob Ford had something to do with his "disappearance". I'm saying now that the video is out of reach, it now becomes his word versus the Toronto Star, which he has been railing against since before his election.
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 04:36 PM
|
#406
|
|
tromboner
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
By acting like its completely ridiculous maybe you kill the story in the grave.
|
Hindsight is 20/20, yadda yadda yadda... but clearly that approach didn't work. Given his credibility issues, quite predictably.
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 04:36 PM
|
#407
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: SE Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Oh just stop already.
Are we getting so stupid as a society that we are going to have to explain absolutely everything to the minute detail.
Are we going to have to start expecting 70 paragraph answers to more complex questions.
I don't smoke crack as a statement means I don't smoke crack
|
CC dont tell me that the thought didn't cross your mind when he made the statement. If my political future is on the line, my administration is in disarray, and I have to go make a statement to quell the issue and move on I would make the most definitive statement I can
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 04:40 PM
|
#408
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothpops
I don't think it's a coincidence that the drug dealer with the tape is unreachable, and Rob ford comes out the day after to make his statement. I'm not saying that Rob Ford had something to do with his "disappearance". I'm saying now that the video is out of reach, it now becomes his word versus the Toronto Star, which he has been railing against since before his election.
|
It means it was all a hoax, a lie, to suggest Ford had anything do to with the "unreachable drug dealer" is border line truther level....and having something do to with it would make things worse and you just can't something like that quiet, especially with all the leftards going after Ford all day and all night.
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 04:40 PM
|
#409
|
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilyfan
CC dont tell me that the thought didn't cross your mind when he made the statement. If my political future is on the line, my administration is in disarray, and I have to go make a statement to quell the issue and move on I would make the most definitive statement I can
|
I don't smoke crack goes along with ridiculous and goes along with the present scandal.
Its just like if a sex tape came out on me (Like anyone would care) and I came out with a "I don't sleep with fat chick"
That addresses the current accusations.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 04:41 PM
|
#410
|
|
Norm!
|
If the Star wants to get ahead on this they might want to think about an apology unless the video owners come back to the table in the next day of so.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 04:43 PM
|
#411
|
|
Basement Chicken Choker
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Its just like if a sex tape came out on me (Like anyone would care) and I came out with a "I don't sleep with fat chick" .
|
Hmm, I'm going to have to call "credibility gap" on this one, too.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 04:50 PM
|
#412
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman
It means it was all a hoax, a lie, to suggest Ford had anything do to with the "unreachable drug dealer" is border line truther level....and having something do to with it would make things worse and you just can't something like that quiet, especially with all the leftards going after Ford all day and all night.
|
Ok, I'll play.
So, if we assume everything you're saying is true, why exactly did a USA based website, that seems to have maybe 1 or 2/100 stories having anything to do with the country of Canada, decide to create this "hoax" and begin to perpetrate these "lies"?
Why did they choose Rob Ford? Why Toronto? Wouldn't it have been much better (ie. more profitable via page views) for their website to "lie" about the mayor of say, New York? LA? Philly? Miami? Boston? I could probably name another 20 cities (if not many more) and their mayors that Gawker readers would care a helluva lot more about then Rob Freakin Ford and Toronto. So please, do explain Mel, why, why did they start in with these evil lies when at the time the Toronto Star (nor anyone else) had said a single thing about Ford being a crack man??
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
Fyodor Dostoevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 04:50 PM
|
#413
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: not lurking
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
So as an aside, I posted the Jan 19th ad from Canadianlisting. What if we, the Gawker and The Star and Ford have been made the victim of one of the greatest pranks of all time.
What's the legal shakedown that happens fromthat.
What if this was some guys who shot a fake video with a Ford look alike.
Does Ford have legal avenues?
If it was a prank, were any crimes actually broken.
This is all hypothetical
|
I think this would be a test of the relatively new (2009) libel laws regarding journalistic rights. It's referred to as responsible communication on matters of public interest. There's two tests:
a) that it's a matter of public interest.
b) was it reported in a diligent manner (sources checked, the importance and urgency taken into account, was the plaintiff's side checked, etc.).
http://www.lexology.com/library/deta...b-43efa9292f4a
I imagine that in this hypothetical scenario, it easily passes the first condition, but that there would be great debate about the second, since it's not a black and white statement. I won't pretend I have any idea which side of the fence this one would fall on, and a lot of it would depend on the details of the prank in your hypothetical.
edit: hypothetical aside, if the video does not surface and Ford decides he's going to go after the media sources, it would probably still hinge on the same points: for the Star, was there an urgency in publishing when they did; did they reasonably check into their source and determine that it was plausible that he could have recorded this video; did they attempt to get Ford's side of the story; to what extent were they making allegations about Ford, and to what extent were they reporting Gawker's allegations?
Last edited by octothorp; 05-24-2013 at 05:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 04:59 PM
|
#414
|
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kipperfan
Ok, I'll play.
So, if we assume everything you're saying is true, why exactly did a USA based website, that seems to have maybe 1 or 2/100 stories having anything to do with the country of Canada, decide to create this "hoax" and begin to perpetrate these "lies"?
Why did they choose Rob Ford? Why Toronto? Wouldn't it have been much better (ie. more profitable via page views) for their website to "lie" about the mayor of say, New York? LA? Philly? Miami? Boston? I could probably name another 20 cities (if not many more) and their mayors that Gawker readers would care a helluva lot more about then Rob Freakin Ford and Toronto. So please, do explain Mel, why, why did they start in with these evil lies when at the time the Toronto Star (nor anyone else) had said a single thing about Ford being a crack man??
|
Not necessarily saying that its Gawker or the Star that created the hoax, but the possibility exists that the "drug dealers created the hoax"
what if the video was fake? Then the question comes in about how hard they looked at this video before running with the story.
And if they had an inkling that it was fake (star and gawker) and didn't want to spend their own money to secure it, then there's the question of running the story without verified facts.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 05:00 PM
|
#415
|
|
Norm!
|
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 05:07 PM
|
#416
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kipperfan
Ok, I'll play.
So, if we assume everything you're saying is true, why exactly did a USA based website, that seems to have maybe 1 or 2/100 stories having anything to do with the country of Canada, decide to create this "hoax" and begin to perpetrate these "lies"?
Why did they choose Rob Ford? Why Toronto? Wouldn't it have been much better (ie. more profitable via page views) for their website to "lie" about the mayor of say, New York? LA? Philly? Miami? Boston? I could probably name another 20 cities (if not many more) and their mayors that Gawker readers would care a helluva lot more about then Rob Freakin Ford and Toronto. So please, do explain Mel, why, why did they start in with these evil lies when at the time the Toronto Star (nor anyone else) had said a single thing about Ford being a crack man??
|
I never said it was gawker who created this insanity.
your argument assumes that.
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 05:08 PM
|
#417
|
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman
It means it was all a hoax, a lie, to suggest Ford had anything do to with the "unreachable drug dealer" is border line truther level....and having something do to with it would make things worse and you just can't something like that quiet, especially with all the leftards going after Ford all day and all night.
|
I think you need to re-read what i wrote. What i wrote basically boils down to; now that the dealer can't be found and there's no video to be published, Ford comes out with a statement saying that he doesn't smoke crack. There's no longer proof, other then the screen grab and 3 reporters' word. He said just enough in his statement to re-butte the allegations, and used tight legal phrasing on the off chance the video appears.
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 05:13 PM
|
#418
|
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman
I never said it was gawker who created this insanity.
your argument assumes that.
|
But gawker did start the story, The Toronto Star was investigating substance abuse allegations (drinking) 6 months ago. It was gawker that first saw the tape and then shopped it to CNN, who then called Rob Ford's office to confirm it's existence. All of this is in the gawker article, and the Toronto Star's investigation was explained a few days ago live on CBC.
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 05:17 PM
|
#419
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothpops
But gawker did start the story, The Toronto Star was investigating substance abuse allegations (drinking) 6 months ago. It was gawker that first saw the tape and then shopped it to CNN, who then called Rob Ford's office to confirm it's existence. All of this is in the gawker article, and the Toronto Star's investigation was explained a few days ago live on CBC.
|
Gawker reported it first - My thinking is the other way.
If the video is legit - why go to some obscure outfit like gawker - the fact they are involved makes me lean to it doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
05-24-2013, 05:19 PM
|
#420
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman
Gawker reported it first - My thinking is the other way.
If the video is legit - why go to some obscure outfit like gawker - the fact they are involved makes me lean to it doesn't exist.
|
I wouldn't exactly call Gawker obscure, and they are exactly the type of publication that would be all over something like this.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:47 PM.
|
|
