Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

[scribblet]

It's hard to disagree with the assessment of an informant's motive but I'm left wondering where Christie Blatchford and all this journalistic integrity was when people were using cartoon drawings of mobile chemical weapons labs as a justification to go to war? Didn't she feast on that juicy story too?

No idea what you are talking about or what it has to do with the Rob Ford situation.

[BubberMiley]

Totally agree. IMO, unless the video in question surfaces Ford should go on running the city.

I'm always impressed by your loyalty to the team. There are few Ford loyalists left, so I guess you can consider yourself among the hard core who would like to see him continue being Mayor.

[scribblet]

I'm not a 'Ford Loyalist', one does not have be so in order to take exception to the type of journalism we are seeing. I would have voted for another guy running. If John Tory had run, he would've been my pick.

I have a problem with anonymous sources, anonymous drug dealers/users as informants and, no actual evidence.

I don't condone this type of behaviour if true, but the pack/herd mentality of the media and their lack of substantive evidence is a problem. The Star has stepped over the line with it's vindictive personal vendetta which I think, is turning a lot of people off. So, yeah, taking all of this into consideration I'd like to see Ford win another term just to watch the Star et al heads explode.

[g_bambino]

I have a problem with... no actual evidence.

I don't condone this type of behaviour if true, but the pack/herd mentality of the media and their lack of substantive evidence is a problem. The Star has stepped over the line with it's vindictive personal vendetta which I think, is turning a lot of people off. So, yeah, taking all of this into consideration I'd like to see Ford win another term just to watch the Star et al heads explode.

There is, as far as we outside of three journalists and some drug dealers are concerned, no substantive evidence; that is true. However, considering the answer to a simple question brings one to strongly suspect that the evidence exists: why would three journalists from two different media outlets in two different countries put their careers on the line by conspiring on a fabricated story about a video showing Rob Ford smoking crack? It's firstly implausable that two journalists from the Star and the head editor of Gawker would have reason to collude and, secondly, they'd all be destroyed--indeed, the reputations of their respective newspaper and website would be irreprarably damaged--if they were caught lying about the whole thing. There's no doubt most of the Star's editorialists hate Ford; but, to the extent of risking journalistic execution? I highly, highly doubt it. And Gawker has no even remotely similar motive.

[Guest American Woman]

It's not as if the Star has a great reputation as 'fair and balanced;' I would wager its fans would still be fans regardless of the outcome of this incident. I don't know about Gawker's reputation, but I would say the same about them as I do the Star - they are taking the word of criminals; they are dealing with criminals in this situation, so I'm not so sure what that says about their journalistic integrity. But again. There is no way they could have verified the authenticity of the video - a point which has been made repeatedly. Just because a video exists doesn't mean it's authentic.

[Boges]

These reporters staked their reputation on a video that may never come out. Are we to believe them only because making up this story would be career suicide? You can't prove a negative. If the video never existed in the first place it would be impossible to prove these reporters lied.

I'm not saying the video doesn't exist. I'm just saying that the fact these reporters are staking their reputation on this story isn't evidence the video is real or that it's Rob Ford in it, if it is.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Boges

[Bryan]

It's not as if the Star has a great reputation as 'fair and balanced;' I would wager its fans would still be fans regardless of the outcome of this incident.

I suspect you are correct. It seems to me that those who are fans of The Star would welcome any attack on those on the right, even if they knew right from the outset that the narrative was complete fiction. As long as it makes conservatives look bad, then the ends justify the means.

[g_bambino]

I would say the same about them as I do the Star - they are taking the word of criminals... There is no way they could have verified the authenticity of the video - a point which has been made repeatedly. Just because a video exists doesn't mean it's authentic.

They have made no mention of taking the word of criminals; they have repeatedly said they watched a video shown to them by drug dealers. Falsifying a photo is one thing; doing the same to a video is something altogether different. I doubt these drug dealers have either the technology or the skills to stage and film a scene into which edited extant other video of Ford could be inserted so as to make it appear as though he was indulging in crack while talking smack about Justin Trudeau and the kids on the football team he formerly coached; that's some James Cameron level film making, there.

[ed.: +]

Edited May 25, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Are we to believe them only because making up this story would be career suicide?

I said the answer to the one question I posed brings one to strongly suspect that the evidence exists. 'Strongly suspect' is not the same thing as 'believe'.

[Guest American Woman]

They have made no mention of taking the word of criminals; they have repeatedly said they watched a video shown to them by drug dealers.

They don't have to "mention" it; by presenting the video as Ford they are demonstrating that they are taking the word of criminals.

Falsifying a photo is one thing; doing the same to a video is something altogether different. I doubt these drug dealers have either the technology or the skills to insert Rob Ford so as to make it appear as though he was indulging in crack while talking smack about Justin Trudeau and the kids on the football team he formerly coached; that's some James Cameron level editing, there.

I'll take the opinion of an expert over Jon Stewart's, who himself has no idea regarding the authenticity of the video, either. As I already posted:

David McKay, [is] the president of Blackstone Forensics Ltd. in Vancouver.

McKay spent six years with the RCMP and has testified in court as an expert witness on video forensic analysis. He is also the manager of the B.C. Institute of Technology's Forensic Video and Surveillance Technology lab.

Excerpt from an interview with him re: this video:

With the Toronto video, the people who have seen it have said they saw it on an iPhone only. How easy would it have been for them to tell if that's the real thing?

It's going to be difficult just to visually observe a piece of video and say 'that's authentic.'

Edited May 25, 2013 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

y presenting the video as Ford they are demonstrating that they are taking the word of criminals.

Taking someone's word for something means one believes what someone is saying regardless of a lack of evidence. The Star and Gawker journalists are relating what they saw with their own eyes; they said the person in the video looked like Ford because they recognised him themselves, not because those who possess the video said it was Ford.

It's going to be difficult just to visually observe a piece of video and say 'that's authentic.

I stand by my earlier comment: It's going to be difficult to create a false video like the one described by the three viewers of it.

[ed.: ital]

Edited May 25, 2013 by g_bambino

[Bryan]

Falsifying a photo is one thing; doing the same to a video is something altogether different.

Have you ever used the digital tools available for photo and video manipulation? In many ways, doctoring a video is easier because the tools are really advanced. A lot of the masking and pixel cleanup is done automatically on the fly, you don't even have to know how to do it properly the way you would in Photoshop. There are loads of free tutorials online. It would take a very short time to learn to do something as simple as merge two videos of similar looking individuals.

I'm not saying is IS fake, I'm just saying faking it in such a way that NO ONE could tell, is very easy. Show me an "expert" who says he can always tell, and I'll show you someone who doesn't know enough to know what he doesn't know.

[g_bambino]

In many ways, doctoring a video is easier because the tools are really advanced... It would take a very short time to learn to do something as simple as merge two videos of similar looking individuals..

That presumes a Ford doppelganger was used. (In which case, it would be unnecessary to merge two videos.) It also presumes. though, that this Ford lookalike sounds like Ford and the producers of this fiction were professional enough to dress their actor in an identical sweatshirt to one known to be owned by Ford. Possible; but improbable.

[The_Squid]

The chief of staff being fired for telling Ford to go to rehab is a big clue as to whether the video is real....

[Boges]

The chief of staff being fired for telling Ford to go to rehab is a big clue as to whether the video is real....

That's not definitive yet. I've heard people in the know say he was fired for saying a party for his former football players was a bad idea and that their relationship had already been strained. Dewey hasn't said why he was fired yet has he?

[scribblet]

That's what I thought, we don't know he said that !

[The_Squid]

The Ford family has a rich history in drugs it turns out....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/globe-investigation-the-ford-familys-history-with-drug-dealing/article12153014/

What has emerged is a portrait of a family once deeply immersed in the illegal drug scene. All three of the mayor’s older siblings – brother Randy, 51, and sister Kathy, 52, as well as Doug, 48 – have had ties to drug traffickers.

But I'm sure ALL of this is simply idle speculation and the terrible media out to get poor Mayor Ford.

[scribblet]

What - 10 anonymous drug dealers/users from 30 years ago - really, are there no journalistic standards left anywhere. Why did they sit on this, where they waiting for their best bang for the buck.

Ford has allready denied it on a radio show today. He can't sue because he would be financially ruined if he tried to go up against the Thomson family millions. These lawsuits drag on for years and the lawyers have to be paid.

This is nothing but a circus now with tabloid style yellow journalism running rampant. The CBC also runs with the story opening up saying they can’t collaborate the claims of the G & M article. Are there any journalistic standards left in Canada.

[The_Squid]

LOL. The evidence is piling up that the Mayor smokes crack and your biggest concern is journalistic ethics?

[Icebound]

Agreed. The idea that someone of questionable character can simply show a video to a couple of reporters who cannot verify the authenticity of it, a video that very well may never see the light of day, and the reaction is what it has been is quite remarkable - and scary, IMO. It appears as if we no longer require proof before judging/condemning.

Our justice system has evolved into a lumbering dinosaur where "legal" proof in many cases is impossible. Witness the number of people who have gone to jail as a result of the 2008 financial mis-doings... very few. The number of charges in the Senate frauds? zero.

So the public will be forgiven for accepting something less that full "proof". Especially when there is a pattern. Especially when the lips say "No, I do not...", and the body language says something else.

Today, Doug rushed over to CP24 to defend against those Globe and Mail charges of selling hash. The interview was basically one question "did you do it?"... The answer was: "No", followed by a rant about the evil people at the Globe and the Star, and the horrors of family scrutiny, and the litany of charitable works the family has done, and on like that.... Punctuated occasionally with "...30 years ago. Is that all they got?"

Now, he might have helped himself a lot more with his own version of history for that time... with whom he hung out, what church choirs he belonged to, which restaurants he frequented. But he did not replace the Globe's story with a believable alternative history, and that makes it very difficult.

To you and me, the believability of these stories may boil down to "he said, she said".... but I wonder if: for a lot of people a little closer to the action, these stories are starting to connect a few dots.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Icebound

[BubberMiley]

It's going to be difficult just to visually observe a piece of video and say 'that's authentic.'[/indent]

But it would be extremely easy to visually observe a piece of video and say 'that's fake.' In other words, faking it is extremely hard if not impossible.

Even if you don't believe the Star reporters' account, Rob Ford's lawyer's account gave him away. Even if you don't think it's suspicious that his lawyer would resort to the "how do you know it's crack he's smoking?" defence, there's the fact that his family have a long history of substance abuse and drug dealing. Even if that doesn't phase you, his loyal chief of staff getting fired for telling him he needs help is just a little suspicious (and note, he has made no denial that he told Ford he needs help). There's no question in my mind the video is real because everything points to that conclusion. The only thing I'm wondering about is who shot the guy posing in the picture beside Ford and why.

[waldo]

This is nothing but a circus now with tabloid style yellow journalism running rampant. The CBC also runs with the story opening up saying they can’t collaborate the claims of the G & M article. Are there any journalistic standards left in Canada.

here... try the SUN! Rob Ford needs to leave office — and the sooner the better

[Guest American Woman]

But it would be extremely easy to visually observe a piece of video and say 'that's fake.' In other words, faking it is extremely hard if not impossible.

I'll say the same thing to you as I did to g_bambino - I'll take the word of an expert over yours - and Jon Stewart's. If it were so easy to visually observe a piece of video on an iPhone and say "that's fake," there would be no need for experts nor expert testimony. There would be no need to authenticate such videos. If it were so easy to do say 'that's fake,' the expert I quoted would have said so rather than saying it would be difficult to say it's authentic.

Furthermore, it's not impossible to fake it. It may be difficult to fake it, or it may not be, since I haven't seen the video for myself and have no idea of the quality, clarity, etc. But just the fact that it's not impossible means it's a possibility, eh?

Even if you don't believe the Star reporters' account, Rob Ford's lawyer's account gave him away. Even if you don't think it's suspicious that his lawyer would resort to the "how do you know it's crack he's smoking?" defence,

Except his lawyer didn't say that. Which supports my opinion that this video should not be given the time of day since anything that's said will be twisted by some and can, and will be, used against him.

there's the fact that his family have a long history of substance abuse and drug dealing.

Let's say that's true.* So anyone who has family members who have used drugs - is a drug user, too? Anyone who has siblings that are alcoholics - are alcoholics, too? If you have siblings who are a criminal - you're a criminal too? Funny. I've never seen that kind of "evidence" admissible in court. a thousand times over.

Even if that doesn't phase you, his loyal chief of staff getting fired for telling him he needs help is just a little suspicious (and note, he has made no denial that he told Ford he needs help).

Ummmm. He also hasn't confirmed that he told Ford he needs help re: drug abuse. Odd, isn't it, as he's not denying that he told Ford that he needs help?? This way people can - and will -speculate to their heart's content.

There's no question in my mind the video is real because everything points to that conclusion. The only thing I'm wondering about is who shot the guy posing in the picture beside Ford and why.

I guess it's obvious that you don't need real proof to have no question in your mind. Unfortunately, there are many, many like you.

Edited to add:

*And after reading the article, since there's "nothing on the public record to confirm it," that's giving the claim the benefit of the doubt.

Edited May 26, 2013 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

I'll say the same thing to you as I did to g_bambino - I'll take the word of an expert over yours -

And I'll say the same thing to you that I already did: you didn't really understand what the expert was saying. the quote you highlighted twice says it would be difficult to verify that it is real. That is a very different standard than verifying that it is fake. I realize that might blow your mind, but I think you will understand with a simple challenge: provide one video with close-range speaking humans in it that is fake but looks real. If it's really technically possible, as you claim the experts claim, then it must exist, right? Edited May 26, 2013 by BubberMiley

[Guest American Woman]

And I'll say the same thing to you that I already did: you didn't really understand what the expert was saying. the quote you highlighted twice says it would be difficult to verify that it is real. That is a very different standard than verifying that it is fake. I realize that might blow your mind, but I think you will understand with a simple challenge: provide one video that is fake that looks real.

YOU are the one who does not understand what the expert is saying. If there were no such thing as a fake video that looks real, there would be no need for experts to determine if a video is authentic, would there?

If it would be "difficult" for those who saw the video on the iPhone to determine if it were authentic, according to the expert, then we do not know - based solely on three people viewing it on an iPhone - whether or not it is authentic. If it would always be easy to determine if a video was fake, it would be easy to determine if it were authentic or not. And there would be no need for experts.

If you still don't get it, that helps explains why so many are running off with this as some sort of definitive proof; "proof" that would never hold up in a court of law. Others don't care and will run with anything that supports their view/agenda. And it is, as I said, scary.

I find it really, really odd that no one else has seen this video after all this time. I find it odd that the media isn't being forced to name their source.