Gawker Claims Video Exists of Rob Ford Smoking Crack
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
The Star reporters might not be outright lying about the video, but they are taking information from sources, and printing it as fact/rumor, without digging deeper to verify the information. Trust, but verify. The star did not ask to see the time stamp on the video. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like an obvious question for a reporter to ask.
Similar to the story of Ford assaulting the football player. The Star went with the story based on a rumor from a source, without digging deeper and asking the football player what happened.
Similar to the story of Ford swearing at the 911 operator. The Star went with the story based on a rumor from a source, without digging deeper and listening to the 911 recording.
The Star did not want to dig deeper into the story, because if they did, it could kill the story.
A bit like asking for evidence in the form of Edison Wax Cylinders; all accounts from witnesses are of a digital file played on a cel-phone. Even if the thing is a fake, it's highly unlikely tape was ever involved. Not to mention that tape never been regarded as a reliable evidentiary medium.
One of the difficulties in discussing this matter is that, other than the original media reports and Rob reading his carefully prepared script, so many people have been so sloppy about their own word use.
They reported very carefully that they saw him smoking from a glass pipe in the video, and that the video owner told them it was crack. They did NOT say it was crack or even speculate about it, they strictly documented the facts of what they saw, how and where, and what they were told by who.
Saying it could have been hash when no one said that would be speculating and their lawyers likely would not agree to publish a story with such speculation.
You can tell reading the article, from how carefully everything is worded, that they are lawyered up and precleared every statement written with a lawyer to ensure everything they wrote could be defended in court.
Strange. finally someone says thing in my mind for the last 2 weeks.
Kathleen Wynne, the new premier, one of the prominent pinkos south of St Clair Avenue, never hided the fact she didn't like a full casino in Toronto.
But she inherited Paul Godfrey from Dalton McGuinty administration. With the blessings from his previous boss, Paul Godfrey delivered privately the OLG commitment $100 M hosting fee to the City of Toronto, the mininum amount the City of Toronto demanded.
All these changed once Wynne become the Premier. She got to keep her downtown pinkos happy and stop casino setting up shops in Toronto.
How did she do that? She instructed Paul Godfrey to create a new formula to calculate the hosting fee 'to treat all Ontario cities and towns identically'.
Finally on Tuesday 2 weeks ago the new hosting fee amount $54 m was announced and hence killed the Casino movement. Paul Godfrey (and his board of directors resigned amass )was fired on Wednesday the next day.
On these very days after Quessn's Park under Kathleen Wynne killing the Casino, when we the Ontarians would have hotly debated this change of heart from the Liberal government (plus debates on $550 m bills in cancelling and relocating the gas plants and secret marriage on Provincial Budget between NDP and Liberals), we had this Rob Ford smoking crack news starting in Ontario by the Liberal supporter newspaper , Toronto Star. (Forget Gawker, nobody in Canada had heard of it before the Star mentioning it.)
Did Toronto Star deliver a favour to their Liberal friends at Queen's Park and took the wind out of the opposition sails? I can't prove it.
But its a very strange and timely coincidence.
They said exactly that. How can anyone complain about the Star's reporting when it actually meets their own standard?
FORD IN
'CRACK
VIDEO'
SCANDAL
…was the headline. It precisely summarizes the situation based on what the reporters said they saw in the story following, and the Gawker report. No insinuation at all.
Be accurate and factual yourself if you want to hold others to that standard.
-----------------------
To save you digging through your recycling as I did, here's the subhead as well:
Cellphone recording made by men
involved in Toronto drug trade—
viewed by a pair of Star reporters—
appears to show incoherent mayor
inhaling from a glass crack pipe.
Again, very precisely stated summary of only what the reporters actually claim they observed, with no conclusion or insinuation (such as hashish, crack, heroin, or indeed any drug—just inhaling) beyond. A somewhat higher standard of accuracy and precision than you're maintaining Phil.
Right fuji, this exactly how the National Enquirer operates also. They'll say "our sources told us so-and-so is screwing around on his wife". This way they they can't get sued and they still get their cheap gossip across.
The Toronto Star is in fine company
It's sad that media reached the point where you can put word out there without substantial evidence as long as you're safe from being sued ...just in case.
Media maggots says Ford.
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/mayor-rob-ford-brother-blast-bunch-of-maggots-in-the-media
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/mayor-rob-ford-brother-blast-bunch-of-maggots-in-the-media
Why aren't they suing? Especially Doug, who would have an easy case to win if the story was untrue? Oh....because they are lying!
They wouldn't publish it if we refused to read and get excited about it. They make their money from selling our eyeballs to advertisers.
Like government, we get the media what we deserve. The Star's been working to verify this story for weeks, and sat on it until Gawker started canvassing for money to buy and publish it. Ya think people take Gawker's calls because no one ever looks at its stories?
A start would be for folks to read the actual story, instead of going on what their coffee-buddy—who may not have read it either—told them it said.
Second step in being an Adult Literate: Don't make up what was not said. Smart people can tell what's between the lines, but they know they're suckers for getting drawn into discussing and arguing what was never actually stated. Only fools argue about what they think someone else probably inferred from what they believe was insinuated.
Wiser folks wait for facts.
It's how Woodward and Bernstein of the Washington Post got to the core of Nixon's Watergate cover-up. Pretty decent company. It's how all journalists operate. If they didn't there'd be nothing in the news but the official press release pap, that no one would be able to critique, contradict or deny.
It is BTW how all those stories about e-Health, ORNGE, and the gas-plant costs got into the media: reporters printing accounts of hearsay offered by sources trying to protect themselves from fallout by staying anonymous.
In your imaginary world where would the Star have found the money to finance all the accountants and inquiries to make a solid court-ready case—two legislative committees, the A-G and the cops haven't managed one yet—before printing word one?
Too silly McNasty. But very astute to recognize with your Enquirer mention, that not all news sources are equal. Now just stop trying to make the impossible case that your personal opinion of the Star is the only one (some otherwise functional folks believe in the Enquirer's BatChild) and your blood pressure will improve.
You have a right to any wacky opinion you want, but your Star 'Facts' have been wrong so far and the failed efforts weaken your premise.
