Rob Ford Transgressions Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Reverse conspiracy at work here among the apologists:

Among a significant amount of evidence of wrong doing some people increasingly try to concoct fantastical reasons to deny it. -Andrew Coyne

I haven't seen a lot of conspiracy theories from the wait to see the video/no evidence crowd here.

I saw conspiracy theories from the he smoked crack side here in spades, from word smithing to outright accussations that he bought the video.

I think I was the only one that bought up the idea of killing the video holders instead of buying them off because it was cheaper, but I was joking.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I haven't seen a lot of conspiracy theories from the wait to see the video/no evidence crowd here.

I saw conspiracy theories from the he smoked crack side here in spades, from word smithing to outright accussations that he bought the video.

con·spir·a·cy the·o·ry
Noun
A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.

"Based on the accounts of three eye witnesses familiar with Rob Ford, who state that they repeatedly viewed a video tape in which Rob Ford is smoking something out of a crack pipe, I believe that Rob Ford was, at one time, smoking something out of a crack pipe" ≠ conspiracy theory.

"At least dozens of members of the liberal media elite from competing news organizations, in conjunction with senior members of the Fords' staff, have worked together in order to fabricate a story about the existence of a video tape in which Rob Ford is smoking something out of a crack pipe in order to [insert dastardly motive]" = conspiracy theory.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

680News Toronto‏@680News5m

#BREAKING: Mayor Rob Ford's press secretary and deputy press secretary have resigned. George Christopolous & Isaac Ransom have quit. #TOpoli

You definitely don't want to be the faces of these two fat fataing fata's.

The balloon is up!!

Cowperson

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You definitely don't want to be the faces of these two fat fataing fata's.

The balloon is up!!

Cowperson

Well they are the leaders of Hogtown.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I haven't seen a lot of conspiracy theories from the wait to see the video/no evidence crowd here.

I saw conspiracy theories from the he smoked crack side here in spades, from word smithing to outright accussations that he bought the video.

I think I was the only one that bought up the idea of killing the video holders instead of buying them off because it was cheaper, but I was joking.

I am tempted to believe to believe the reporters from two separate sources with their claim rather than your explanation, which if I follow it straight is that Rob Ford is being set up by the Star/liberal media, which is out to get him or that they have fallen victim to an elaborate setup in which there is a Rob Ford lookalike who has made videos in order to show Ford in a negative light... and that Ford is an alcoholic who fired his chief of staff for calling him an alcoholic who should go to rehab for alcohol... and then other senior members of his staff resigned because of something and the police are involved for some other reason. The explanations given by Ford apologists (which you seem to be regardless of your refusal to label yourself as such) are so convoluted that they honestly don't make any logical sense.

I think it would be foolish to discard to notion that he didn't buy the video if it does exist, he has the wealth/means and he obviously would have the motive to do so.

[sketchyt]

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".

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by sketchyt

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).

.

I don't understand this rule. Who made it? Where is it from? Why aren't the three eyewitness accounts of its existence sufficient? How has the Srar or Gawker mislead any reader about the source of their information?

[Bunk]

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/rob-ford-crackstarter

$200,000 raised.

But, I doubt the video is still available.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I don't understand this rule. Who made it? Where is it from? Why aren't the three eyewitness accounts of its existence sufficient? How has the Srar or Gawker mislead any reader about the source of their information?

Fair point. It's not really a rule, but if it were it was probably the same guy in taped-up glasses who decided journalists must spell out the numbers 1 through 9 in accordance with CP Style.

It's more of a believability-to-severity of accusation issue. I don't think anyone mislead anybody. Three eyewitness accounts are way more than enough for say, a house fire (i.e. "Boy, that fire was big," said neighbour Sergei Makarov standing over the ruins of Alex Burrows' house while Calgary Flames fans stand behind giving him a standing ovation.). There's a burnt down house, someone saw it, the fire dept verified it. Yeah, it happened.

For the Ford story, it's still pretty weak for The Star (and in another really annoying and one-of-those-things distinctions in journalism, I don't link Gawker in the hard-journalism side of things so I think they can say whatever they want to say).

Two eyewitness accounts on a video watched on a tiny cell phone screen. I can't remember but they watched it once or twice? Weak. There's no burnt down house. We're getting closer with his team quitting/fired. He's not in rehab. There's still no video. There's still nothing that has surfaced.

I love a good story in journalism. And a great story (bad news or good news) would be the mayor of freaking Toronto doing crack-cocaine. That's a pretty out-there accusation and claim. So the more out-there you are, the stronger your proof should be. It's not a rule, much like there's no rule stopping The Star from printing a story that says, "Alexander Burrows stops diving and biting hockey players. Video evidence exists and is in the possession of Ryan Kesler. Our reporters saw the video. We swear. Click here to read more."

All I'm saying and what I think others are saying is that the truth and the (low) level of reporting are two different things here.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by sketchyt

Fair point. It's not really a rule, but if it were it was probably the same guy in taped-up glasses who decided journalists must spell out the numbers 1 through 9 in accordance with CP Style.

It's more of a believability-to-severity of accusation issue. I don't think anyone mislead anybody. Three eyewitness accounts are way more than enough for say, a house fire (i.e. "Boy, that fire was big," said neighbour Sergei Makarov standing over the ruins of Alex Burrows' house while Calgary Flames fans stand behind giving him a standing ovation.). There's a burnt down house, someone saw it, the fire dept verified it. Yeah, it happened.

For the Ford story, it's still pretty weak for The Star (and in another really annoying and one-of-those-things distinctions in journalism, I don't link Gawker in the hard-journalism side of things so I think they can say whatever they want to say).

Two eyewitness accounts on a video watched on a tiny cell phone screen. I can't remember but they watched it once or twice? Weak. There's no burnt down house. We're getting closer with his team quitting/fired. He's not in rehab. There's still no video. There's still nothing that has surfaced.

I love a good story in journalism. And a great story (bad news or good news) would be the mayor of freaking Toronto doing crack-cocaine. That's a pretty out-there accusation and claim. So the more out-there you are, the stronger your proof should be. It's not a rule, much like there's no rule stopping The Star from printing a story that says, "Alexander Burrows stops diving and biting hockey players. Video evidence exists and is in the possession of Ryan Kesler. Our reporters saw the video. We swear. Click here to read more."

All I'm saying and what I think others are saying is that the truth and the (low) level of reporting are two different things here.

Fair points. However, I will respond with several quotes from the initial Toronto Star story:

Two Toronto Star reporters have viewed the video three times.

Although it is not clear what type of screen they watched it on, it seems to me that their account of the video is too detailed for it to have been a mobile phone screen:

The Star had no way to verify the authenticity of the video, which appears to clearly show Ford in a well-lit room...
...
Throughout the video Ford’s eyes are half-closed. He lolls back in his chair, sometimes waving his arms around erratically. He raises a lighter in his hand at several points and moves it in a circle motion beneath the glass bowl of the pipe, then inhales deeply.
The Star reporters (Donovan and Doolittle) were shown the video on the evening of Friday, May 3, in the back of a car parked in an apartment complex at Dixon Rd. near Kipling Ave. in the north end of Etobicoke. The reporters were allowed to watch and listen to the video three times. After, both reporters separately made written notes of what they saw and heard. Both reporters, prior to watching the video, studied numerous city-hall-related videos of Ford and, to the best of the reporter’s abilities, they separately concluded the man in the video was Ford.
In the video, what appears to be afternoon sunlight is streaming through partially closed window blinds, lighting Ford’s face. The video ends with the ringing of a cellphone (it is not clear if it is the cellphone that is being used to video the scene). The ring tone, which is a song, startles the mayor, whose slitted eyes open a bit, and he is heard to say, “That phone better not be on.”

[smoothpops]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...board/follows/

"The informant in the mayor’s office purported to know the address and unit number where the video was being held."

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Makarov

"Based on the accounts of three eye witnesses familiar with Rob Ford, who state that they repeatedly viewed a video tape in which Rob Ford is smoking something out of a crack pipe, I believe that Rob Ford was, at one time, smoking something out of a crack pipe" ≠ conspiracy theory.

"At least dozens of members of the liberal media elite from competing news organizations, in conjunction with senior members of the Fords' staff, have worked together in order to fabricate a story about the existence of a video tape in which Rob Ford is smoking something out of a crack pipe in order to [insert dastardly motive]" = conspiracy theory.

Do people still use video tape?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Do people still use video tape?

Fata me, I'm old. The answer is no, no they don't.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Fata me, I'm old. The answer is no, no they don't.

Just giving you a hard time...I too remember video tapes...oh the epic battle of VHS vs Beta...but I digress.

[Hemi-Cuda]

What I'd like to know is how those reporters were able to see the video without making a copy. Did they drop by the drug dealers house so he could show them? For them to have seen it any other way means a copy is out there somewhere

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

What I'd like to know is how those reporters were able to see the video without making a copy. Did they drop by the drug dealers house so he could show them? For them to have seen it any other way means a copy is out there somewhere

No mystery. The Gawker reporter flew to Toronto to meet the person with the video and watched it on a phone. http://gawker.com/for-sale-a-video-o...-cra-507736569

[octothorp]

Toronto Star reporter Robyn Doolittle reports that other copies of the video are out there, or at least additional people claiming to have seen copies of the video have come forward.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05...n_3343234.html

I think it's only a matter of time now. Doolittle was one of the two original Star reporters to see it, and if it's all a hoax, there would be nothing for her to gain by raising expectations about the release of the recording, it would be better to keep the illusion that it's just one copy and its owner has gone into hiding.

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Of course he can lie about it (and I suspect he would if it meant him staying in power)....but we have no tangible evidence that he has or did at this point....none.

That's how it works in a free society....innocent until proven guilty.

Fortunately for the people of Toronto there is a public court of opinion where that doesn't matter however, and they have a very easy course of action to punish him with when the next election comes. Until that time though, or until the alleged video is secured and declared as real, accusations are just that...accusations.

No one should be forced to resign there elected position on pure supposition though. If that was the case we would see politicians getting accused of any number of things at every level of government with the conclusion of them leaving their post....all without tangible proof of wrongdoing. A very slippery slope that no one should want to see in any democracy.

I think we were making the same point.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Toronto Star reporter Robyn Doolittle reports that other copies of the video are out there, or at least additional people claiming to have seen copies of the video have come forward.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05...n_3343234.html

I think it's only a matter of time now. Doolittle was one of the two original Star reporters to see it, and if it's all a hoax, there would be nothing for her to gain by raising expectations about the release of the recording, it would be better to keep the illusion that it's just one copy and its owner has gone into hiding.

Well keep selling those newspapers is pretty big motivation

[octothorp]

More information from the G&M regarding the police tip from last week.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle12186406/

According to an unnamed source, David Price (the recent hire who the G&M alleges was involved in Doug Ford's drug-dealer past) found out the location of the video, and told chief-of-staff Towhey their location as well as the fact that the original owner of the video was now dead because someone had killed him for the video. At that point, Towhey realized that this was potential criminal investigation evidence, and felt the need to tell police about it.

Nothing particularly revelatory in that information, just adds some names to the story, and I think many people speculated that Towhey was behind the police tip.