The police have it, as do some lawyers.
It would come out as evidence if some of the crackheads arrested go to court, but if they plea bargain it won't.
Gawker Claims Video Exists of Rob Ford Smoking Crack
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
It would come out as evidence if some of the crackheads arrested go to court, but if they plea bargain it won't.
This must be driving you nuts fiji. All this evidence and no confession from Ford. Like everyone else in politics, nobody's going to admit to something unless there's real proof, in this case a video. There's got to be more evidence besides some people who say they saw him smoking crack. It probably exists but until it's made public, why would anyone admit to it.
Kinda like if your wife confronted you about sleeping with SP's. You'd deny it until you're blue in the face, repeatedly telling her she has no proof even though some of your friends know and told her it's true. If she has some reason to suspect you've been cheating on her, why not confess?
That's what you're asking Ford to do. It's no different, other than he's the Mayor and you're not, but the reason to lie is the same. You're no different!
They are all somewhere on the thread.
The Globe story outed his unsavory hiring practices. His knowledge of the video was in one of the star stories, he sent a staffer to the apartment to look for it.
The crown having the video is in a link I provided just a page or two ago.
Maybe someone should create a consolidated page with all the links since the thread is long but they are all up there somewhere.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...alleged-drug-scandals-complaint-hearing-told/
Michael Cooke, editor-in-chief of the Star, emphasized (during the Ontario Press Council hearing) that Rob Ford was given 14 opportunities to comment on the “crack video,” though all of them occurred between 8:30 and 10 p.m. on the night before publication. , and some involved slipping hand-written notes through the mail slots of the Ford brothers’ homes, which led to a minor confrontation with a security guard.
Not responding? Because he felt guilty as charged or with 14 contacts in hour and half late evening he found annoying and refused to comment?
The media treatment he has been receiving since getting elected as Mayor I am not surprised.
If you accused someone of being a lying maggot and they gave you a venue to prove your accusation and discredit them publicly, … wouldn't you attend?
In spite of all the clowns still slavering to see the video and/or declaring their not seeing it is evidence of something, this latest resurrection of the Rob's a Crackhead Story is about journalism. The Rob's Innocent Case has only two elements so far. A single late, flat and sweeping denial that addressed none of the published and still unrefuted circumstantial evidence (the photo at the crackhouse f'rinstance) and 'they're a buncha maggots out to get me'. So far Rob's offered no evidence to support his accusations about the Star's malice or irresponsibility. This was his chance.
The Press Council deals with the journalism standards and practices only, deliberately and emphatically separating the the story content out. If ever there was a forum for factual, calm presentation and consideration that the Crack Story was a perversion of good reporting or of the so-called Star Vendetta, this was it. But that would require Rob to present a rational case, supported by more than emotion, prejudice, pleading and bluster.
From his DUI drug bust through the conflict of interest and libel court cases, and the City Hall stuff of ignoring integrity rules and ethical standards of behaviour, obsessing over plastic bags and putting trolleys in tunnels, with a leaderless Council foundering while he mindlessly chants of "Subways, subways, subways" rational cases never been his style. Not that his fanboys will care that he made no case, and thus leaves the obvious implication standing.
We'll see what the Press Council says in due course, as the Star is required to print their every word. It was interesting to note that both the complainants cited not naming sources and those who confirmed them as the journalistic sin they wanted addressed, saying that left the credibility of the story entirely and irresponsibly in question. At the risk of hyperbole and an overly blunt metaphor, I must ask 'What were they smoking?'
It's the citizen-reader's task and burden to constantly assess the credibility of whatever news they get. It's why they call it 'news'. By the time it's publicly proven beyond a doubt it will be old and tired. The difference between real news from real news media that have professional standards, and the sort of 'news' that some anonymous guy posts in an unmoderated forum, or tells you on the subway, is what credibility you can assign that news/gossip because of the source.
If the only information you want is proven and judged fact, with all the evidence spelled out in detail then you're demanding the news media be as impartial and thoroughgoing as the Courts. They take years and hundreds of unreadable pages to provide that reliability. That reliability is available for the complainants already but not from any daily newspaper. So far no one has asked the Courts for it.
What the Press Council will say is that the Star and Globe did get 'news' just as anyone might. But that unlike just anyone, they then dug for supporting or disproving detail, went out to find confirmations or denials from others who knew, matched everything up and decided they wre on the right side of the law and responsible reporting of new information the public wanted and needed to know. What they'll also say is whether that process was all that professional standards and the public's expectations require.
Those who only want to read proven fact shouldn't be reading anything but science textbooks, and even those with deep skepticism.
Last edited:
I wouldn't be surprised if that is a normal time-frame for a news story. Journalism is a competitive business and I suspect the fear is that another paper might scoop you.
The Star published what it had because Gawker had scooped it already. Among other minor details they could add to the central one of having been offered and having seen the video was the response or non-response of Ford. One of the cruel realities of being a newsmaker is that timeliness and not your preference or schedule determines when and for how long the response window is open for you before the story breaks. I don't think Gawker gave Rob even a peek at such a window.
Reading between the lines, it seems the Star would have preferred to keep patiently working to persuade the video owners to give it up, or to get someone on record to give the story a more solid foundation, but they had to play what was in their hand: 'A guy offered to sell us a video; two of us saw it three time and here's what we saw; it appeared to show the mayor; he appeared to be smoking what the seller said was crack and here's some not very nice stuff we heard him say. Various folks have confirmed various bits of all that but all of them are afraid of the exposure'.
All the rest is invented and embroidered on that, often by folks who never actually read it themselves.
Complete speculation on your part as usual.
They weren't forced to do anything. Its print media at its most desperate worst.
I call BS on that part completely. The Star has a reputation for jumping all over the Ford's at every given opportunity and can't wait to dig up more and more dirt on them.
Add to that the media's inherent need to sensationalize (quite literally) everything, and voila! They were frothing at their mouths to jump all over this bandwagon. One need only to read their headline that day, to gain insight on their motives: http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha..._rob_ford_in_crack_cocaine_video_scandal.html
The only reason it is a scandal, is because THEY made it a scandal!
Media should REPORT the news- NOT create it.
This is precisely the reason they are being investigated now for their reporting practices:
"The Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail were called before the Ontario Press Council after dozens of readers complained about their coverage of the Fords in two specific stories published in May.
The council is looking into a Star story on an alleged video of the mayor smoking what appears to be crack cocaine, as well as a Globe story on his brother Doug’s alleged drug dealings.
It is weighing whether the two newspapers ”engaged in irresponsible, unethical investigative reporting.”"
http://globalnews.ca/news/827463/star-globe-defend-stories-on-ford-brothers/
Indeed it was, which was why i prefaced it as I did. More to the point than calling "as usual" would have been to refute speculation with fact. Fact is, the responsible media commonly does as I speculated: report what is new today as factually as they can. As you said, they weren't forced, it's news media's job. When and if people buy 'oldspapers', they're shopping for books. So I can only assume you also think it was the probable process although apparently you judge it very harshly for unstated personal reasons.
Perhaps you meant your opinion to apply to my précis of the Star's story, but that was no speculation, and I stand by it. However I'll gratefully correct any specific errors you point out.
-----
BTW why did you single out print media? Does TV, radio, internet blogs and bulletins, or subway gossip, do better? Worse? I won't ask if you meant 'print' to include learned quarterlies, monthly and weekly magazines and books, not just daily papers but it does.
And I call BS on your BS as no one has disputed that the Star could have published what Gawker did much earlier.
That would have been the earliest opportunity. Why you think any reporter or editor might spurn such an offer of a juicy story about a public figure is beyond imagining, so is speculating that they wouldn't try to dig up more, for no other reason than to support what little they had. Even Gawker did that. In any case your personal prejudice that the Star has a vendetta is in no way an argument that they wouldn't be trying to assemble the best, most libel-proof story they could. If they acted as stupidly as you suggest they'd long ago have been bankrupted by lawsuits. Assuming the stories were not true of course, as it ain't a vendetta to uncover wrongdoing.
As for their supposed need to sensationalize, you and I and the TERBians still churning this after 3500 posts and all the folks like us are the ones to blame. Re-Read Phil's Post #1that went up only a couple of hours after the Gawker story. No one manufactured his interest for him. If we didn't hunger and thirst to be first with the latest sensational news the media would be feeding us an earnest, learned and sober diet of nothing but facts and scholarly analysis. They're in the business of selling your eyeballs and mine, so don't hand yours over if you don 't like the crap they have on offer.
Or try to be the thoughtful, principled, careful sort of judicious citizen you want them to better serve and see past the sensation and avoid kneejerk responses. Three line posts with BS as the third word fit the 'need to sensationalize' model real well.
Believe in vendettas or vampires for all I care (and that weightlless point was long ago made) but if you want to engage in an adult discussion of aspects of the world we share then let's agree to stick the facts we can all examine. Those facts about the Star's coverage and the Globe's of the Rob'n'Doug Drug Stuff have been put before the Press Council and the papers have offered their rebuttals. It's a pity only a few readers went to the trouble to complain, and not someone with resources or interest to make a case more forcefully, but they had their reasons. Now we have to wait to see what the Council thinks.
Meanwhile your Vendetta Argument long ago persuaded anyone it was going to. Repetition just convinces those who decided differently that you have nothing but repetition to support your position.
Have you read any of the proceedings? It is looking grim for the Fords.The only reason it is a scandal, is because THEY made it a scandal!
Media should REPORT the news- NOT create it.
This is precisely the reason they are being investigated now for their reporting practices:
"The Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail were called before the Ontario Press Council after dozens of readers complained about their coverage of the Fords in two specific stories published in May.
The council is looking into a Star story on an alleged video of the mayor smoking what appears to be crack cocaine, as well as a Globe story on his brother Doug's alleged drug dealings.
It is weighing whether the two newspapers "engaged in irresponsible, unethical investigative reporting.""
http://globalnews.ca/news/827463/star-globe-defend-stories-on-ford-brothers/
The editor in chief of the Globe put himself on the witness stand stating that the Globe had direct reports from 100 people on the Ford family involvement with the drug trade, including ten people who had themselves actually bought drugs from Doug Ford.
Utter nonsense.The only reason it is a scandal, is because THEY made it a scandal!
Media should REPORT the news- NOT create it.
This is precisely the reason they are being investigated now for their reporting practices:
"The Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail were called before the Ontario Press Council after dozens of readers complained about their coverage of the Fords in two specific stories published in May.
The council is looking into a Star story on an alleged video of the mayor smoking what appears to be crack cocaine, as well as a Globe story on his brother Doug’s alleged drug dealings.
It is weighing whether the two newspapers ”engaged in irresponsible, unethical investigative reporting.”"
http://globalnews.ca/news/827463/star-globe-defend-stories-on-ford-brothers/
The only reason it's a scandal is because it was no longer a secret. The media didn't create the video as far as anyone knows, or is saying, and the only ones you can blame for "…mak[ing] the news" is whoever made it, real or fake, and the seller. If you, or Phil C. McNasy or I or millions of others weren't interested in what the Mayor was up to, especially involving stuff as controversial as popular illegal drugs, then the media wouldn't even report it. Like they don't report him declaring Freedom to Read Day in Toronto.
You may believe the Press Council called the Star to account for "…creating the news", but they have said no such thing, nor has anyone reported that any of the hundred-odd citizens complaining accused them of doing so.
Like everyone else, you want the video—whether faked, the real thing or proven to be a fairytale—to support or demolish an opinion about the Mayor and about the media. The Press Council would love to see it too. Too bad. All you're gonna get from this venue is: "Responsible, ethical, reporting and editing is done like this. Here's what the Star did. Here's what the Globe did. Here's how we measured it against the standards." followed by, "Bad, very bad. Publish How Bad We Were and go forth and sin no more", or "Regrettable because of the fuss and feathers but otherwise OK".
Don't pre-judge.
Of course, the other problem w Boodog's position is that Rob Ford dawdled and prevaricated re the video even when he indisputably had ample time to comment and discuss. And in the end, all we got was a laconic denial - which was undercut w reports that he privately acknowledged the existence and location of the vid. So much for lack of opportunity to respond.
Now that we have confirmation of the matter from Ford's now fired chief of staff, Ford's lack of responses look even more ridiculous.
There are so many bits of circumstantial evidence that points towards Ford being on the video, none of which Ford has denied or responded to.
Instead all we got was 'next question'.
