Rob Ford Transgressions Thread

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by nik-

Half of his staff isn't quitting over a fabrication. Some people pick weird hills to die on.

Are they? I know they are quitting - but I don't know why - and I am not one to make an assumption

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

You think he is guilty based on hearsay. Imagine if someone with a beef against you started spreading "rumours" and everyone around you, friends, family, employer was convinced you were guilty based on that hearsay. I bet your opinion changes pretty quick.

If Rob Ford actually does crack, there is more proof than just a video and there are more people who know, you just can't do crack and not have anyone know about it. You can't possible kill or pay off everyone to keep silent - it's border line truther insanity - Bottom line is people don't like Rob Ford, because of his politics and how he presents himself (both pretty shallow reasons) and people want this to be true, so they try real harder to justify it.

There is a remote possibility you are right but how do you explain the resignations and firing of those working closest to him, who probably know the truth. As for saying "there are more people who know", sure mostly other crack heads who wouldn't be the best witnesses, wouldn't want to incriminate themselves and wouldn't want the publicity. Others probably only noticed his strange behaviour, which has been reported.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Attacking someone based on appearance/or how he carries himself is shallow.

Geez, you are really setting the bar high here. We can't "attack" him based on his politics, because that's shallow, and we can't "attack" him based on the way he carries himself, because that's shallow too.

Politics and personality are off-limits, so what do we have to go on? Shoe size? Golf handicap?

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Attacking someone with the sole purpose of circumventing democracy because he doesn't lean your way politically is pretty bush league - This isn't about making Rob Ford look bad (he does a pretty good job himself at that) it's about running him out of office. Better ways to do that - so maybe not shallow. But this entire thing is reaching new heights, and to me an outsider I can't decide who makes Toronto look worse- Rob Ford or his detractors.

I know it's "politics" but this is out of control.

"Circumventing democracy...". Pretty serious business. If the whole thing is just a big lie, then yeah, you are right. I don't think they made it up, so I guess that's the rub.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

There is a remote possibility you are right but how do you explain the resignations and firing of those working closest to him, who probably know the truth. As for saying "there are more people who know", sure mostly other crack heads who wouldn't be the best witnesses, wouldn't want to incriminate themselves and wouldn't want the publicity. Others probably only noticed his strange behaviour, which has been reported.

I can't, and if i tried it would be an assumption - just like what you are making. Maybe it's cause Rob Ford sucks to work for...maybe this happens anyway (without the crack allegations)....maybe it's cause he smokes crack, i have no idea - but doesn't prove the existence of the a video or that he does smoke crack!

Point is - he was accused of smoking crack based on a video that could of been purchased for 200K - and now the accusers are all backtracking -

it all stinks!!!! I am not sure what to believe

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Politics and personality are off-limits, so what do we have to go on? Shoe size? Golf handicap?

I admire Rob Ford's ability to fit 4 billiard balls in his mouth.

[Matty81]

I don't know how you could sue anybody for libel for reporting that somebody is shopping a video of someone they claim is (and looks like) Rob Ford smoking crack.

That's a story I'd want our media in Canada to report everytime on any of our major politicians, and the public can make up its own mind on the merit of it. I never saw a story in print anywhere with the headline "Rob Ford smoked crack". If it's without merit, the libel/blame rests with the person incriminating Ford not the organizations reporting a fact, that someone was claiming he did and trying to sell a video of it.

Increasingly there is this notion among the extreme right wing that how dare anyone in the media question us or run a negative story and to perceive anybody criticizing them as their enemy. It's their damn job to run any story that's newsworthy, not to sculpt their narrative and pick stories that fit the view they already have ala Fox news or Sun news.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

"Circumventing democracy...". Pretty serious business. If the whole thing is just a big lie, then yeah, you are right. I don't think they made it up, so I guess that's the rub.

You are convinced 100%?

[V]

I'm pretty convinced that there's a video too. But based on the severity of the claims, and the fact that none of it was backed up makes me think that the Star is open for a libel suit.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by V

I'm pretty convinced that there's a video too. But based on the severity of the claims, and the fact that none of it was backed up makes me think that the Star is open for a libel suit.

Libel has to involve the communication of a false statement and the thing is, they never claimed Rob Ford smoked crack. They reported that someone was selling a video claiming Rob Ford was smoking crack, which was verified by a third party and then confirmed even by Rob Ford's staffers.

So how could they be sued for libel?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by V

I'm pretty convinced that there's a video too. But based on the severity of the claims, and the fact that none of it was backed up makes me think that the Star is open for a libel suit.

I'd say no, based on my understanding of the laws. Journalists don't need to be right to be protected from libel charges. In the Star's case, their argument is this: under the rulings regarding responsible communications on matters of public interest, they need to meet two requirements:
a) that it's a matter of public interest. (I don't think there's any question that it is, in this case. Especially given that Canada adopts a broad view of what matters of public interest are.)
b) that it was reported in a diligent manner. This means that the decision to publish based on what information they had at that time was a diligent decision.

This second requirement consists of several considerations:

i) the seriousness of the allegation - the more serious the allegation, the greater the diligence necessary. Drug use is probably a less serious allegation than corruption. There was no trafficking or anything here.
ii) the public importance - the more important it is, the less diligent the source can be in publishing. I'm honestly not sure where the crack scandal fits on the importance scale, but I would lean towards less important.
iii) urgency - if there's a need to publish the article immediately without further time for diligence, that's a factor. For the Star, this would be one of the key defenses: the Gawker article was out there. The Star had been sitting on their evidence for a couple weeks apparently trying to gather further evidence, but as soon as Gawker published their article, then it became urgent for them to add their evidence to the conversation.
iv) status and reliability of the sources: a mixed bag in this case. Obviously there were drug dealers involved, but if the journalists saw video evidence themselves, then for them it's based on hard evidence that they've seen, and not on a source.
v) whether the plaintiff's story was sought and accurately reported. The original story in the Star contains quotes from Ford's lawyer, as well as an account of trying to reach the office and the now fired Towhey hanging up on them.
vi) Whether inclusion of the defamatory statement was necessary. In this case, the Star was very careful with their language and never specifically stated that it was the mayor, only that it appeared to be. If they had said conclusively that it was him, or made further accusations like wondering if he was protecting criminals, than those might be unnecessary defamatory statements.
vii) Whether the defamatory statement's public interest lay in the fact that it was made, rather than its truth. In this case, the fact that Somali drug dealers were shopping what appeared to be a video of Rob Ford smoking crack is newsworthy, whether the video turned out to be a hoax or not.

I think there's more than enough there for the Star to make a very solid claim that they acted with diligence. Points ii and iv above lean against them, while the other five points lean in their favour, sometimes strongly so. I'd actually like to see Ford attempt to sue the Star, because I'd be very curious to see how the courts interpret it. They might have a better argument against Gawker (at least under Canadian laws... but I think American laws would apply since it's a US hosted site, and then there would be an entirely different set of factors).

[Slava]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Geez, you are really setting the bar high here. We can't "attack" him based on his politics, because that's shallow, and we can't "attack" him based on the way he carries himself, because that's shallow too.

Politics and personality are off-limits, so what do we have to go on? Shoe size? Golf handicap?



"Circumventing democracy...". Pretty serious business. If the whole thing is just a big lie, then yeah, you are right. I don't think they made it up, so I guess that's the rub.

I think we can attack him based on his politics and policies. The funny thing is that almost no one I know can tell me what his policies are though! Most Calgarians just have an opinion that he's an ass, and that "we elected the mayor they should've and vice-versa". For all I know, the guy is a fantastic mayor.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think we can attack him based on his politics and policies. The funny thing is that almost no one I know can tell me what his policies are though! Most Calgarians just have an opinion that he's an ass, and that "we elected the mayor they should've and vice-versa". For all I know, the guy is a fantastic mayor.

The biggest thing he's pushing is subway development rather than LRT... basically sacrificing network size to avoid losing automobile lanes. In a perfect world I'd prefer subways too, but surface rail offers more bang for the buck.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

The biggest thing he's pushing is subway development rather than LRT... basically sacrificing network size to avoid losing automobile lanes. In a perfect world I'd prefer subways too, but surface rail offers more bang for the buck.

Well I have no idea about how that goes in Toronto, but if he's endured 7th ave here, he sounds like a wise man!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I have no idea about how that goes in Toronto, but if he's endured 7th ave here, he sounds like a wise man!

Well, I think the 8th Ave Subway is needed sooner rather than later, but I think what he's talking about it more like if Calgary had made the Crowchild part of the system a subway. There's places where a subway is appropriate, and there's places where LRT is appropriate. Rob Ford doesn't want any LRTs.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by nik-

Half of his staff isn't quitting over a fabrication. Some people pick weird hills to die on.

How do you know that they aren't quitting due to the media harassing them non-stop? Seems like quite the jump to just assume it is because the mayor does crack.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Ark2

How do you know that they aren't quitting due to the media harassing them non-stop? Seems like quite the jump to just assume it is because the mayor does crack.

Yeahhhhhhh...... I'm sure the media is talking to them much less now that they have resigned. I'm sure there is nobody in the media wanting to know about why they resigned or what they know of what went on...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

You are convinced 100%?

I'm 100% convinced that it's more likely that the three reporters did not make the whole thing up.

That doesn't really mean I'm 100% convinced there is a video of him smoking crack, but if I had to make a bet...

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm 100% convinced that it's more likely that the three reporters did not make the whole thing up.

That doesn't really mean I'm 100% convinced there is a video of him smoking crack, but if I had to make a bet...

Well the Toronto Star already published an article about Ford beating his players did they not? That was false, why wouldn't this be? There could be a video, it may not be him, or it could or there isn't, we have no bloody idea...

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Well the Toronto Star already published an article about Ford beating his players did they not? That was false, why wouldn't this be? There could be a video, it may not be him, or it could or there isn't, we have no bloody idea...

Have you actually read the article in question? The Toronto Star did not say that Ford beat his players. They reported (correctly) that Ford was dismissed from his coaching position at Newtonbrook Secondary School following an incident with a player. The TorStar article was very clear that they could not confirm if a physical altercation took place.

Read the article and judge for yourself:

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hal...gh_school.html

Mayoral candidate Rob Ford was quietly asked to stop coaching football at a Toronto high school following an incident with a student player, say officials with the Toronto District School Board.

Ford was coaching at Newtonbrook Secondary School in North York in 2001 when he had a confrontation with a young player over poor performance on the field, say two witnesses who spoke with the Star on condition of anonymity.

Chris Spence, director of education for the Toronto District School Board, confirmed a dispute between a student and Ford was dealt with internally, although he was not aware of the details.

“Something did happen and they decided that he was no longer welcome to coach at Newtonbrook,” said Spence, himself a former pro football player who was not director of the board at the time.

Witnesses interviewed by the Star disagree on whether there was a physical confrontation between Ford and the student player.

Ford, one of his players and an assistant coach at the time deny any physical contact took place. But a parent and another player say Ford aggressively manhandled the student in anger.

That story, in which they're quoting eye witnesses from an event that occurred nearly a decade ago, is an entirely different situation than the current story in which two of the Star's own reporters claim to have personally seen the crack video.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Well the Toronto Star already published an article about Ford beating his players did they not? That was false, why wouldn't this be?

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hal...gh_school.html

If you read the original story - which you obviously haven't - you can see that the Star is very careful to say that there are several people who claim to be witnesses to the physical altercations and verbal abuse, but that one of Ford's assistant coaches is asked about the allegations and that he denies anything of the sort ever occurred. One paragraph explicitly says: "Witnesses interviewed by the Star disagree on whether there was a physical confrontation between Ford and the student player."

If you think that is "false", you have a very different definition of "false". Reporting on what people claim to have witnessed can never be false unless the reports themselves are falsified, not just because the allegations are unproven or later proven to be untrue. Further, Rob Ford has never sued the Star for any of the various unflattering stories about him, which, if they were truly "false", he surely would have done.

In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about, and the irony of you complaining about a news outlet being insufficiently exacting in their pursuit of truth, while you don't bother to check your own "facts", is telling.