Gawker Claims Video Exists of Rob Ford Smoking Crack
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
Annoying, innit! They tried this before a few years ago, with most major papers quietly dismantling the paywalls and going back to free content. Hopefully they'll do so again.
And so they should call him out on his cowardice. He has 2 hours every Sunday to blather on the radio about nothing and make unsubstantiated and unquestioned declarations about things he does't know or understand; and take friendly prearranged phone calls.
But he refuses to answer direct questions with direct answers to the media.
As a media junkie I really resent this because I want to be able to see political coverage from all the various publishers and editorial POVs.
So with that in mind here's a couple of non-partisan work-arounds for everyone re: paywalls.
1. Easiest way to temporarily get around them is to open a different browser. If you're using Chrome, switch to IE or Firefox and you'll start over and get another 10 free articles
2. For Internet Explorer: Tools > Internet Options > in Browsing History click on Delete button. Then put checkmarks for: Preserve Favorites, Temporary Internet Files..., Cookies and Website Data, and History. Then hit the Delete button and you should be good to go again, without the annoying popup that locks you out.
Wont work long-term fuji, because eventually some computer nerd will start up a newspaper torrent site where you can download daily newspapers in 3 seconds flat (same way you can dl movies and music now).
The media is gonna have to concede and figure out a way to raise revenue through ads alone.
My fav online newspapers who gone with paid (or partially paid) content so far are:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/
http://www.thestar.com/
http://www.torontosun.com/
Totally annoying!!
I figure I paid a lot of money for all my computers around the house. I also pay around $100 for my internet service, so 2 out of 3 aint bad because I'm not gonna pay to access news sites as well.
If people do give in, it wont belong before have to pay $10 to $20 per month a few years down the road just to read their shitty, biased news
There's a 3rd trick you can use, but I'm not gonna post it here for everyone to see. PM me if you wanna know
You are right, and unright. From my perspective, the lines between "investigative journalism" and editorials are very blurry these days.
That's because you read newspapers that no longer employ investigative journalists. Instead they send columnists to media events to write an opinion piece.
Investigative journalism at the Sun or the Post means attending press conferences. At real newspapers it means going out into the field to get the story.
There is a reason why almost every major story was broken by the Star. They are the only ones still in that game. Sometimes the Globe/CTV or CBC gets it, but they have more of a national focus and get stretched pretty thin.
It's quite clear-cut.
The Star and the Globe printed facts.
The Sun, on the other hand, acted as the current mayor's publicist:
But the story is accurate, even Lisi's lawyer is not denying that the police are investigating his involvement.
No follow up questions, no questions about specifics, or about how someone who's been arrested multiple times for threatening and assaulting women could be considered "a great guy and straight as an arrow".
If I actually said something that I had to eat crow for, I would agree with you. The more important question is: will you eat crow if a video of Rob Ford smoking crack
does not show up?
In all fairness you can't prove a negative, or the non existence of something, only the opposite, Unless a video is found and released of a fat white man smoking crack (or other illegal drug) which is either not clear enough to be identified as Ford, or is clear enough that it is not Ford, of course in either scenario there will be those who will believe and claim that video is fake.
At this point one cannot prove the video exists either.
Lets look at what those investigative reporters wrote:-
“(Lisi) knows he is the subject of an investigation,” said Domenic Basile, Lisi’s lawyer. Basile said Lisi would not answer any questions from the Star about the investigation or his association with Ford. “It is none of your business,” Basile said.
So the defence lawyer said Lisi knew he is the subject of an investigation. What investigation?
According to the Star Lisi is a career criminal, so when is the last time we hear a career criminal is not on police radar and under investigation of some sort.
If you are a defence lawyer and media keep asking about your client, what do you do? You say something vague but interesting so those so-called investigative reporters may leave you and your client alone.
On the other hand did Lisi even actually admit he is under investigation or his lawyer just said that to the reporters so that they would be left alone " Basile said Lisi would not answer any questions from the Star about the investigation or his association with Ford. “It is none of your business,” Basile said."
Did the Toronto Police confirm the story? NO.
Here's the funny thing. I love newspapers. I love traditional media. Online journalism is 99% flakes, hobbyist (not the fun TERB kind), tinfoil-hatters, and dabblers. I LIKE newspapers, with their editors and readable content. I LIKE reading something put together by a professional journalist who has investigated a story. Sure, newspapers have their faults and like everyone else on God's green earth Imma going to sneer at the ones that oppose my political views. But, overall, I still love them and weep every day as they decline.
...and yet, I'm with you. Fuck them if they want me to pay. What makes me even more hypocritical is that I will happily shell out more than 20 bucks a month to subscribe to a good newspaper, physically delivered to my door. But I'll be fucked if I'll give them a red cent on mah interwebz!!! It's irrational, but there ya have it.
You may not have heard, but newspapers have this whacky habit of trying to get the news out as quickly as possible. Now, I'm just blue-skying here, but it might have something to do with the whole "news" thing.
Oh, and this just in:
Those attitudes are changing. I used to feel that way about movies and music. It's was so easy to download torrents and mp3's and the studios were such assholes about online content that I actually felt good about it.
But you know what? That was ten years ago. Now we have Netflix, Apple TV, Google TV and that's easy too and I don't mind paying because the service is reasonable.
For music we have rdio and songza, and I pay my subscription fee. I find rdio a little clunky but still usable. One day hopefully we will get google music and pandora in Canada and I will be a happy customer.
So I expect gradually people will change their minds about paying for good quality journalism too. So far I don't pay either, but I no longer have that "screw 'em" attitude.
I am hoping one day Google news will offer me a premium service where I can view any article they serve up, for a reasonable monthly subscription fee, and they throw a few bucks to the providers I actually read.
It turns out I just want someone to make it easy for me. Like many I read five or six different newspapers online and the hassle of paying each of them deters me.
Just wonder who were those investigative reporters embarrassing their employers at the famous Chicago Daily Tribune?You may not have heard, but newspapers have this whacky habit of trying to get the news out as quickly as possible. Now, I'm just blue-skying here, but it might have something to do with the whole "news" thing.
Oh, and this just in:
Did they hang around on payroll after this picture?
I am still waiting for answer on my post:-
And what's the question? You seem to have an issue with unnamed sources that nobody else can understand.
Do you think that the papers just made up the source? Just because whoever it was doesn't want their name public as source?
I just don't get your point.
As you can see the Star claimed they have to use unnamed source(s) because "Ford has not responded to questions about this sent by the Star",
my question is
The Star was out on the Salmon Express II fishing boat off Port Credit Thursday where for eight hours, the Star had the pleasure of being in the company of Ford, Mississauga’s Hazel McCallion and Veteran Affairs’ Minister Julian Fantino.
Truth is, The Star had Ford captive and both knew it. Why not confronted him with the questions on Thursday before published the article on Friday?
