Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

Black Dog · February 12, 2014

It is about athletes not gay athletes. And this one time ford is right. And all this gayness being pushed into thier faces is not going to be good for gays when everyone leaves.

Yeah the government might pass repressive laws and homophobic beliefs and actions might become widespread. Oh wait. That's what's happening.

On Guard for Thee · February 13, 2014

It is about athletes not gay athletes. And this one time ford is right. And all this gayness being pushed into thier faces is not going to be good for gays when everyone leaves.

Soooo, if you happen to be a gay athelete, don't show up at the olympics seems to be your conclusion? And I don't think most folks would agree that aligning himself with the likes of Putin would in any way make Ford "right". I wonder what Putin would do to Ford if he caught him smoking crack in Sochi?

jacee · February 13, 2014

Am I harsh on the media? Why yes. They are the last line. They are in a democracy the final line that protects us from corrupt politicians so I think its crucial they get it right ...

They did get it right.

The fat is besides the point.

Maybe .. but here's a point for Ford to ponder:

Rates of obesity and diabetes are 33 percent higher in outlying parts of Toronto... Least-walkable neighbourhoods include those in outer Etobicoke and Scarborough. Residents living in such areas have, on average, a one-third greater chance of being obese and having diabetes than those in the most walkable areas, according to the study published Wednesday in the online journal PLOS One.

Edited February 13, 2014 by jacee

Mighty AC · February 13, 2014

I wonder what Putin would do to Ford if he caught him smoking crack in Sochi?

Make Tommy Boy watch while he rides a horse topless.

Rue · February 13, 2014

Yes Gusyer that same Christian Science Monitor. I don't expect any agreemen fom you on what yellow journalism is.

Some of the posters have stated like you that they think repeating anonymous sources is "normal" whatever that means.

First of all the media does a lot of things today but it doesn't make those standards acceptable simply because the media has chosen to engage in this practices.. That kind of reasoning postulates as long as a lot of people do questionable things, it makes those questionable things "normal". Really? Only popularity defines what is acceptable?

I challenge that. I challenge practices I think are questionable and no popularity of those practices to me doesn't make them acceptable by itself. I am not trendy, I don't like following mobs. It goes back to when I was a child watching the Frankenstein movie. I always cheered for Frankenstein when the mob came to kill him, I hate mobs. They do things like burn crosses,,tar and feather people, goose step and chant in unison at rallies and push in trains. Makes me nervous. When Godzilla came to my town I did not run in panic with the people. I stayed and fed him some chickens. He was hungry. All that swimming and all. He just wanted some food you know?

More to the point some of you readers missed the very point I made. No its not "normal" to run an anonymous source saying what they heard someone else tell them which is what the Star did. The fact the person was anonymous was not the issue-the fact they repeated heresay from that source was the issue.

The Star passed on heresay evidence from anonymous sources saying what those sources heard from third parties. The Star was unable to corroborate those third parties existed let alone said what they said but ran the stories anyways/ That is as irresponsible and unethical as it gets.

It gave Ford a wonderful platform to pose himself as being persecuted and prolong his bad behaviour and he played the media and some of you do not get it-someone with serious psychological and personality issues will play you if you take their bait and that is what Ford did. he played the media for months-he's a pathological liar and twisted his messages because the Star took the bait rather than stay calm and wait for the right time.

Look at that stupid woman who went running to the press trying to report Ford as drunk and swetty and pinching her bumb? Where did it get her? What she did was turn Ford into a victim of innuendo by lowering herself to exactly his level.

When you want to get down in the mud and fling it without giving proper effort to prove your allegations the sheeyit just is thrown right back at you and that is what Ford was able to do precisely because of the sloppy Star journalism practices.

It is one thing to independently run an anonymous source's information after making sure its authentic and then hide their name to allegedly protect from fall out. However that anonymous source practice was never given that easily in the past. It was far from the norm. It was a doctrine of necessity and confidentiality that arose in only certain circumstances.

Sources were only given protection in the past if the need to protect them was genuine and there was NO OTHER WAY to get the story out. It was a type of doctrine of necessity. It had to exhaust any other means of getting the evidence first first before it was granted and it could never be given unless the evidence provided could be independently corroborated first.

Now its used all the time and been made a farse first by trash tabloids now papers like the Star. To see the difference go read a Toronso Star article in archives from the 60's, 70's and now today to see how much things have deteriorated not just in the standard of reporting guidelines, but the language used.

Some of you clearly are unaware of past journalistic practices that used to be taught in journalism schol from the sounds of your responses.

Some of you can't imagine there was a different standard than what you see today and to get where we are today means we didn't just suddenly get there we evolved to this level.

Even Wikapedia requires footnotes for phacks sakes.

The other poster missed my point entirely and that is hiding someone's name is one thing, hiding someone's name repeating heresay is b.,s.

Secondly I deliberately chose the Christian Science Monitor as an example precisely for that article you mentioned and you missed the point entirely/

The monitor simply reported directly what the Police Chief said. It did not run second hand stories it could not corroborate and refused to run the video story until Ford corroborated it and there was sufficient evidence to indicate it was real from the Police Chief.

There is a huge difference between a Police Chief having indicated he was able to verify and determine a video exists and shows what it shows and a reporter being allowed to see a video from someone but not authenticating it and ibtaining it from someone with a clear conflict of interest, i.e., he wanted money for the video.

Yes excuse me but reporting what a Police Chief is able to verify is different than reporting what some two bid druggie wanting $25,000 without handing over the video for verification reports and if you can not see the difference between the two, well then keep carrying on as if the Police Chiief'sverified evidence is on the same level of credibility as an unverified video from some two bit druggie trying to make a buck.

If you still can't see the difference its a vivid example of what I am challenging in you and others.

There is a hige difference between substantiating evidence before you report it and simply running it without verifying it.

So you keep reading the Star and keeping your standards where they are as to what is acceptable journalism. That's your choice but no I won't join you and no your definition of yellow journalism is not the only one.

I still write and get paid for it and won't repeat heresay in any articles or research I have been paid for. I owe it to the readers and the Editor.

I had a great Editor who died and he taught me to never repeat heresay however tempting it was. He used to give me sheeyit over using certain words and phrases. On this forum I can ease up and relax and state my opinions and not worry too much but no I would never write in this style even in an opinion piece.

I can give you classic examples of journalists I admire and you can take them or leave them but for me its Gwynne Dyer, Rex Murphy, Red Fisher, Jacques Beauchamps, believe it or not Rene Levesque, Danny Gallivan, Chantal Hebert, Rene LeCavalier.. When these people have spoken or written every word has meaning and is measured with precise clarity.

We have some fantastic journalists in this country. No I will not settle for the Star's standards.

.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Rue

BubberMiley · February 13, 2014

More to the point some of you readers missed the very point I made. No its not normal to run an anonymous source saying what they heard someone else tell them which is what the Star did.

Once again, what are you referring to? You go on and on and on, but you seem unwilling to provide basic context to your accusations. Even Wikipedia requires footnotes.

And BTW, you can't redefine yellow journalism or heresy or hearsay. Other posters may not have a "monopoly" on their definitions, but you were provided with a dictionary definition.

Edited February 13, 2014 by BubberMiley

guyser · February 13, 2014

Rue, too long, quit at hearsay.

Suffice to say, you are full of bs and getting more wrong by the minute.

100% of what the Star reported is true.

Cant deal with it? Too bad

BubberMiley · February 13, 2014

It's interesting that someone would say something like the police chief verified that video was real while trying to argue that people shouldn't make unsubstantiated claims. That's not hearsay or heresy. It's an outright lie. :lol:

g_bambino · February 13, 2014

You are quite correct in one regard, the olympics is about atheletes, some of whom are gay. Putin made the olympics about oppression with laws that would be illegal in most of the rest of the world. One other thing, I'd give it some serious thought before I started quoting Rob Ford these days.

You make it sound deliberate; he didn't make the games anything of the sort. The laws you're referring to were passed by the Russian parliament and then activists and the like-minded less active and the media made the games about oppression, of people identified (by self and by others) as gay, specifically. That seems lazy to me, though; "gay rights" is a simplified and trendy cause; so, it's easy to champion. However, the laws (which do affect more people than just those who call themselves gay) are just a part of the larger problems of autocracy and, consequently, diminishing freedom of expression for everyone in Russia. But, there's no flag for that and Olympics have passed in countries with characteristics similar to Russia's (*cough*, China), yet little to no protest was mounted then. Perhaps people are deliberately missing the forest for a tree.

Anyway, I don't believe anything like that is behind Ford's tantrum.

I love how he taped up a Canadian flag facing directly at.... the Canadian flag flying on Nathan Phillips Square. What a protest! What a boob.

WestCoastRunner · February 14, 2014

That seems lazy to me, though; "gay rights" is a simplified and trendy cause; so, it's easy to champion.

Gay rights is not a trendy cause for those who are fighting for their human rights including the right to marry, anti-discrimination laws, anti-bullying of young people. It also isn't so simplified, not sure what you meant by that. By using the term 'trendy', it diminishes the hard work and the emotional toll that fighting for these rights takes on someone.

jacee · February 14, 2014

On this forum I can ease up and relax and state my opinions and not worry too much but no I would never write in this style even in an opinion piece.

I can give you classic examples of journalists I admire and you can take them or leave them but for me its Gwynne Dyer, Rex Murphy, Red Fisher, Jacques Beauchamps, believe it or not Rene Levesque, Danny Gallivan, Chantal Hebert, Rene LeCavalier.. When these people have spoken or written every word has meaning and is measured with precise clarity.

We have some fantastic journalists in this country. No I will not settle for the Star's standards.

Rue,

I'm not slogging through all that!

Please ... make your point and leave it at that.

Just a smidgen of 'precision and clarity' would really help!

You "relax" your style here just a bit too much ... too long.

Edited February 14, 2014 by jacee

On Guard for Thee · February 14, 2014

You make it sound deliberate; he didn't make the games anything of the sort. The laws you're referring to were passed by the Russian parliament and then activists and the like-minded less active and the media made the games about oppression, of people identified (by self and by others) as gay, specifically. That seems lazy to me, though; "gay rights" is a simplified and trendy cause; so, it's easy to champion. However, the laws (which do affect more people than just those who call themselves gay) are just a part of the larger problems of autocracy and, consequently, diminishing freedom of expression for everyone in Russia. But, there's no flag for that and Olympics have passed in countries with characteristics similar to Russia's (*cough*, China), yet little to no protest was mounted then. Perhaps people are deliberately missing the forest for a tree.

Anyway, I don't believe anything like that is behind Ford's tantrum.

I love how he taped up a Canadian flag facing directly at.... the Canadian flag flying on Nathan Phillips Square. What a protest! What a boob.

If simply discussing your "non traditional" sexual orientation can get you thrown in jail isn't oppression, I don't what the heck else you could call it.

g_bambino · February 14, 2014

If simply discussing your "non traditional" sexual orientation can get you thrown in jail isn't oppression, I don't what the heck else you could call it.

I don't think you read all of my post.

g_bambino · February 14, 2014

Gay rights is not a trendy cause for those who are fighting for their human rights including the right to marry, anti-discrimination laws, anti-bullying of young people. It also isn't so simplified, not sure what you meant by that.

I don't see how your comment negates the trendiness of the cause; perhaps widen your view to take in more than just the activists. In the main-stream media, the cause is simplified (perhaps to fall in line with the current and common, generally simplified, bipolar view of human sexuality); the rights involved are those of more people than just those who self-identify as gay.

As I feared would be the consequence of my earlier post, we seem to be getting off topic.

guyser · February 14, 2014

Now a second video detailing that Ford has been caught smoking crack is available.

But oh my....the Sun says they had sources confirm this and never saw the video.

What yellow journalism-shame!
Sources unnamed? -Shame
Printed for all to see?-Shame !

The horrors

Rue · February 15, 2014

Jacee 2 long 4 u not 4 wife u liv wit tweet an shrt attention span so don't tx brain cool wit dat go live in dat wrld

BubberMiley · February 15, 2014

Extended posts are fine if they are clearly written, don't make false claims and claims without evidence, and don't repeat themselves over and over.

WestCoastRunner · February 15, 2014

Rue, I usually don't read your posts, They are just too long. If you could shorten them up and state what you want to express succinctly, they might just get read more often. And I don't have a short attention span and I'm quite sure Jaycee doesn't either judging by her posts.

jacee · February 15, 2014

Now a second video detailing that Ford has been caught smoking crack is available.

But oh my....the Sun says they had sources confirm this and never saw the video.

What yellow journalism-shame!

Sources unnamed? -Shame

Printed for all to see?-Shame !

The horrors

His name is Mohamed Siad, and he says "hahaha ... I have video of Rob Ford smoking crack", and he's in a position to verify that it was crack in that pipe.

Not that anyone needed verification after his twitching behaviour in Vancouver.

.

jacee · February 15, 2014

Jacee 2 long 4 u not 4 wife u liv wit tweet an shrt attention span so don't tx brain cool wit dat go live in dat wrld

So tell the long version 2 ur wife.

Here try to be more concise, less redundant.

And less insulting when called out, pls.

Edited February 15, 2014 by jacee

cybercoma · February 15, 2014

Jacee 2 long 4 u not 4 wife u liv wit tweet an shrt attention span so don't tx brain cool wit dat go live in dat wrld

I routinely skip over your posts. Even academics need to boil down their arguments into an abstract, which is shorter than most of your posts. When I do take the time to read what you have to say, you often have interesting points worth reading; however, it's like doing a Where's Waldo book.

Rue · February 15, 2014

Lol- you want short? Ford is fat.

BubberMiley · February 15, 2014

At least that's truthful, unlike the claim that the Chief of Police "verified" the video.

jacee · February 15, 2014

I routinely skip over your posts. Even academics need to boil down their arguments into an abstract, which is shorter than most of your posts. When I do take the time to read what you have to say, you often have interesting points worth reading; however, it's like doing a Where's Waldo book.

Re Rue's posts:

I agree cybercoma. Rue brings good info and makes good points ... but repeats them too many times unnecessarily. I'd like more concise versions too.

jacee · February 16, 2014

rob-ford-meets-flappy-bird-in-latest-spinoff-of-viral-game-

Players must navigate Mayor Rob Ford's head through a series of pipes against a backdrop of Toronto in the new spinoff game "Flappy Ford."

...

and the game plays real-life recordings of Ford with each death.

"Enough is enough guys, Obviously I was extremely, extremely inebriated, and I did absolutely nothing wrong are just a few of Fords refrains featured in the game.

:lol: