Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

[Black Dog]

Nonsense. There is zero exposure to defamation. The 3 can turn around and say they never tested the video for its authenticity, and merely reported what they saw. That is not credible, its cowardly. Credible would have been to test the video to verify it before relying on it. Cowardly and irresponsible is what it is to run a story that you know is based on evidence you never tested. Its nothing more than he said she said poison pen inneuendo sleeze journalism. The kind of yellow journalism one would expect from trash tabloids. But then that exactly is what the Globe and Star are. Toilet paper. They have lowered themselves to rag papers. You find that credible wait until someone produces a film of you, doesn't produce that film, never tests that film and says it shows you....

Just like those hacks Woodward and Bernstein, eh?

[g_bambino]

Cowardly and irresponsible is what it is to run a story that you know is based on evidence you never tested.

I'm not sure if you know what the story run by both Gawker and The Star was. Neither said Rob Ford smokes crack. What they said was there exists a video showing Rob Ford smokng crack. The Star reporters tested that by viewing the video themselves; three times. If it were ever found that they'd all three colluded to fabricate the whole thing (which would beg the question: what would Gawker gain out of such an arrangement?), then they'd all be done as journalists.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited May 31, 2013 by g_bambino

[Archanfel]

I'm not sure if you know what the story run by both Gawker and The Star was. Neither said Rob Ford smokes crack. What they said was there exists a video showing Rob Ford smokng crack. The Star reporters tested that by viewing the video themselves; three times. If it were ever found that they'd all three colluded to fabricate the whole thing (which would beg the question: what would Gawker gain out of such an arrangement?), then they'd all be done as journalists.

[ed.: c/e]

I wonder where did people get the idea that Rob Ford smokes crack then. I don't think the Star is so naive that they didn't think people would draw their own conclusions based on their reports. They covered themselves legally by avoiding saying Rob Ford smokes crack, but that's essentially what they are saying.

I am not saying the Star is lying. I believe them on Rob Ford's drug habit. However, I have to agree with Rue that the Star did covered themselves by avoid saying the exact words. I disagree with him, however, that it's "cowardly and irresponsible". That's standard business practice. Nothing wrong with it.

[scribblet]

Presstitutes - just learned a new word today - reporting lies about the staff with anonymous stories. Should they not check the validity of the story before printing allegations and innuendo.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/30/rob-ford-staffer-denies-mayor-gave-them-video-location

TORONTO - Allegations that Mayor Rob Ford told staff where the alleged video of him smoking crack was located are completely false, the mayor’s new interim press secretary said Thursday.

A Toronto Star story published Thursday quoted “senior aides” saying the mayor said “not to worry” about the video and then mentioned an apartment on Dixon Rd. as the potential location.

“It was all made up,” said Sunny Petrujkic. “It’s the furthest thing from the truth. It never took place.”

Same goes for the allegation staffers were deleting e-mails.

“Some of the media are just getting bored now,” he said. “I don’t think we could delete here even if we wanted to.”

Two others in the mayor’s office also said both stories were “fiction.”

[Archanfel]

Presstitutes - just learned a new word today - reporting lies about the staff with anonymous stories. Should they not check the validity of the story before printing allegations and innuendo.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/30/rob-ford-staffer-denies-mayor-gave-them-video-location

TORONTO - Allegations that Mayor Rob Ford told staff where the alleged video of him smoking crack was located are completely false, the mayor’s new interim press secretary said Thursday.

A Toronto Star story published Thursday quoted “senior aides” saying the mayor said “not to worry” about the video and then mentioned an apartment on Dixon Rd. as the potential location.

“It was all made up,” said Sunny Petrujkic. “It’s the furthest thing from the truth. It never took place.”

Same goes for the allegation staffers were deleting e-mails.

“Some of the media are just getting bored now,” he said. “I don’t think we could delete here even if we wanted to.”

Two others in the mayor’s office also said both stories were “fiction.”

Is Petrujkic or Rob Ford more credible than the Star? Rob Ford does not have a very good track record.

ps. I love your interests on housework avoidance, had to chuckle.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Archanfel

[Black Dog]

Presstitutes - just learned a new word today - reporting lies about the staff with anonymous stories. Should they not check the validity of the story before printing allegations and innuendo.

What we have here are competing claims, none of which can at this point be verified. Again it comes down to credibility. Considering Ford lies each time he opens his mouth about what he's accomplished (for example, saving the city more than a billion dollars), and has in the past lied about his behaviour (about his DUI in Florida, about his drunken tirade at the Leafs game) credibility is something in short supply in that corner of city hall.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Black Dog

[Archanfel]

What we have here are competing claims, none of which can at this point be verified. Again it comes down to credibility. Considering Ford lies each time he opens his mouth about what he's accomplished (for example, saving the city more than a billion dollars), and has in the past lied about his behaviour (about his DUI in Florida, about his drunken tirade at the Leafs game) credibility is something in short supply in that corner of city hall.

The problem is that politicians are professional liars (except maybe Rob Ford who is not so professional), but journalists are not. It will be a very sad day when journalists sink to the level of politicians. Reading the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun, I can't help but feel that they each have an agenda that is unrelated to journalism.

I undertand journalists have their ideology and biases. I do too. However, I do try to acknoledge both sides of the arguments and not base my judgements on ideologies, but on facts. Apparently, not doing a very good job, but at least I am trying. I don't think it's too much to ask for journalists to show some professionalism and stop the partisanship.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Archanfel

[Black Dog]

The problem is that politicians are professional liars (except maybe Rob Ford who is not so professional), but journalists are not. It will be a very sad day when journalists sink to the level of politicians. Reading the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun, I can't help but feel that they each have an agenda that is unrelated to journalism.

I undertand journalists have their ideology and biases. I do too. However, I do try to acknoledge both sides of the arguments and not base my judgements on ideologies, but on facts. Apparently, not doing a very good job, but at least I am trying. I don't think it's too much to ask for journalists to show some professionalism and stop the partisanship.

I'm confused. You have stated repeatedly that you believe the allegations made by the Star and Gawker. And yet you continue to talk about the lies they are spreading. So I have to ask: what lies? What evidence do you have of any claims made being lies (that is, deliberate fabrications)?

I have no doubt there's an agenda at work. But the Star having an agenda and Rob Ford possibly smoking crack are not mutually exclusive propositions.

[Rue]

I'm not sure if you know what the story run by both Gawker and The Star was. Neither said Rob Ford smokes crack. What they said was there exists a video showing Rob Ford smokng crack. The Star reporters tested that by viewing the video themselves; three times. If it were ever found that they'd all three colluded to fabricate the whole thing (which would beg the question: what would Gawker gain out of such an arrangement?), then they'd all be done as journalists.

[ed.: c/e]

Here is the legal point. There was never any basis for a defamation law suit. The journalists who ran the story before they ran the story would have been advised as I or any other lawyer would have advised them that they can not be sued for saying they watched a video and that it appears to them to show Rob Ford in it.

They reported they only watched it. They never say they tested the video. They merely watched it. That was deliberate-it meant they were covered from being sued but knew they could still run an unsubstantiated piece of information whose sole purpose was to attack the character of the Mayor.

To me to punch a man only after knowing he can not punch back is cowardly.

Make no mistake GB they knew they could not be sued for simply saying hey watched a video.

The fact they did not test the video before they watched it speaks to their lack of credibility.

A credible journalist would have TESTED the video before reporting it. To run that story without first authenticating the video is as low as it gets.

That was a deliberate editorial decision to run an untested video knowing it may never show up to be proven and I will now explain they would have also been told by their lawyer the tape will never show up. Why? Because the tape tallegedly shows a crime happening and so putting up such a video for sale necessarily means anyone aiding and abetting the people seeking to gain money from a crime makes them just as guilty.

Those journalists had no intention themselves of buying the tape. Never. They would have been advised of exactly what I just said.

That is why they wanted the public to buy the video. The scum press wants some civilian buying that video to take the fall for buying it, but you can bet the paper would then run it again at the expense of the person getting charged criminally for aiding and abetting.

If that tape had been physically provided WITHOUT CONDITION, and then tested for authenticity to verify if had not been doctored then this lawyer would not be pointing out these legal issues and the lack of ethics on the part of these journalists.

Do I have an issue with reporting 6 people have quit in 2 days, no. It is verified fact. Do I have a problem with an editorial opinion saying he is a sleeze, etc., no free speech No not at all. However passing off unsubstantiated inneuendo as reliable fact-you bet I have a problem.

When I said nonsense I meant to the defamation exposure. In regards to your comments about whether these journalists would be finished if the tape was proven fake, uh I don't think so. They will simply say-we never said we tested the tape-we only watched it and reported what we saw-that is if it turns up.

What I can certainly tell you is the Star and Gawker would have been advised by a lawyer that they could not pay for the tape as that would be engaging in a possible crime and that is why they incited that ridiculous fund raiser.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Rue

[WWWTT]

Hi Rue

Are you claiming to be a lawyer???

Because I disagree with many things that you claim!

Buying or selling video/pictures of someone smoking crack is not an illegal act as you claim.

And that's because constitutional rights.

And that's why I doubt you're a lawyer.

WWWTT

[Rue]

Hi Rue

Are you claiming to be a lawyer???

Because I disagree with many things that you claim!

Buying or selling video/pictures of someone smoking crack is not an illegal act as you claim.

And that's because constitutional rights.

And that's why I doubt you're a lawyer.

WWWTT

I said and I repeat if in fact the video does show someone smoking an illegal substance it is evidence of a crime. To determine if it is in fact evidence of a crime it would have to be authenticated. This is exactly why the police asked the Ford office where the video was because if he knew, and was hiding it, he would be obstructing justice. If the tape contains evidence of a crime by the people in the crime, and they are trying to sell it for money, that is in fact two separate criminal charges. If the press wants to enable a criminal to make profit out of a crime, they too are criminally implicated,

You may not understand the law but telling me I am not a lawyer or do not understand the law is not going to change the law. Rather than try personally attack my qualifications because you disagree with them, go find out the law for yourself. Start with the obstructing justice sections of the criminal code and the sections as to aiding and abetting and being an accomplice after the fact.

Then go find out the separate act which is not in the criminal code which has schedules listing what are considered illegal substances you and I are not supposed to use or be in possession of.

With due respect, if you want to question my legal opinion-challenge it. Don't be lazy and say I am not a lawyer simply because you don't agree with what I say. Go out and find the laws to show I am wrong. Can you even do that.

Nothing I said was rocket science. Now stop making it personal and deal with the legal issues. The media and Rob Ford are both barely skirting criminal behaviour. It wouldn't surprise me if they are both under investigation for different reasons.

[WWWTT]

Stop making this personal???

So if anyone starts to doubt what you are writing to be true,then it's a personal attack???

Sorry my friend,but selling alleged evidence is not a crime.

Same thing happens all the time when police officers are filmed beating people up!Or should I say assaulting.

These tapes are usually sold to news stations to help pay for legal fees.And I would imagine that there are profits.

Furthermore,no one has been charged with anything.You are making a claim that the police were asking the Ford office where the video was and for specific reasons.Can you provide a link backing those reasons???

Also you are ignoring the fact that the highest laws in Canada are constitutional and Charter.

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

I said and I repeat if in fact the video does show someone smoking an illegal substance it is evidence of a crime. To determine if it is in fact evidence of a crime it would have to be authenticated. This is exactly why the police asked the Ford office where the video was because if he knew, and was hiding it, he would be obstructing justice. If the tape contains evidence of a crime by the people in the crime, and they are trying to sell it for money, that is in fact two separate criminal charges. If the press wants to enable a criminal to make profit out of a crime, they too are criminally implicated,

How easily is $200k passed across the border? Without identifying the recipient?

I have to wonder if the whole thing isn't a ruse - because evidently no actual evidence is needed; we just need the accusation of three journalists. I agree with you re: Ford; from what I've read, he has his issues. However, that shouldn't make someone fair game for this type of behavior from the media. I long ago lost respect for The Star, and as I said, I don't think they'd lose many readers regardless of the outcome of this whole video fiasco, as they are already clearly biased. As for Gawker, what repercussions is an online media going to suffer?

Whether or not the video ever sees the light of day, the damage is done. People have made up their minds. It's out there on the web - never to die. I can't believe how much crap that has been solidly refuted is still being brought up by people who believe it's true.

[Moonlight Graham]

Dear police, please go get the video, or investigate if it even exists. Then show it to everyone, if it exists. I swear, most of the time it seems the media move a heck of lot quicker investigating things than the police do. But I guess they have protocol and need warrants etc.

[cybercoma]

evidently no actual evidence is needed; we just need the accusation of three journalists..

No evidence is needed for what? There's no trial right now. So what are you referring to?

[Guest American Woman]

No evidence is needed for what? There's no trial right now. So what are you referring to?

You're being pedantic ignorant as usual. Evidence that the video exists, is authentic, that it is Ford, that he's doing what they say he's doing if it is him. Take your pick.

[The_Squid]

You're being pedantic ignorant as usual. Evidence that the video exists, is authentic, that it is Ford, that he's doing what they say he's doing if it is him. Take your pick.

There is first hand eyewitness "evidence" of Ford on a video making homophobic comments smoking something from a typical crack pipe.

[Guest American Woman]

There is first hand eyewitness "evidence" of Ford on a video making homophobic comments smoking something from a typical crack pipe.

No, there isn't. There is alleged first hand eyewitness "evidence," which is something quite different. For the reasons I stated.

[Moonlight Graham]

No, there isn't. There is alleged first hand eyewitness "evidence," which is something quite different. For the reasons I stated.

Also, aren't the only first-hand witnesses crack dealers and users (who were in the room with Ford while he smoked)? Not the most reliable witnesses!

[Black Dog]

Here is the legal point. There was never any basis for a defamation law suit. The journalists who ran the story before they ran the story would have been advised as I or any other lawyer would have advised them that they can not be sued for saying they watched a video and that it appears to them to show Rob Ford in it.

They reported they only watched it. They never say they tested the video. They merely watched it. That was deliberate-it meant they were covered from being sued but knew they could still run an unsubstantiated piece of information whose sole purpose was to attack the character of the Mayor.

To me to punch a man only after knowing he can not punch back is cowardly.

Make no mistake GB they knew they could not be sued for simply saying hey watched a video.

The fact they did not test the video before they watched it speaks to their lack of credibility.

A credible journalist would have TESTED the video before reporting it. To run that story without first authenticating the video is as low as it gets.

That was a deliberate editorial decision to run an untested video knowing it may never show up to be proven and I will now explain they would have also been told by their lawyer the tape will never show up. Why? Because the tape tallegedly shows a crime happening and so putting up such a video for sale necessarily means anyone aiding and abetting the people seeking to gain money from a crime makes them just as guilty.

Those journalists had no intention themselves of buying the tape. Never. They would have been advised of exactly what I just said.

That is why they wanted the public to buy the video. The scum press wants some civilian buying that video to take the fall for buying it, but you can bet the paper would then run it again at the expense of the person getting charged criminally for aiding and abetting.

If that tape had been physically provided WITHOUT CONDITION, and then tested for authenticity to verify if had not been doctored then this lawyer would not be pointing out these legal issues and the lack of ethics on the part of these journalists.

Do I have an issue with reporting 6 people have quit in 2 days, no. It is verified fact. Do I have a problem with an editorial opinion saying he is a sleeze, etc., no free speech No not at all. However passing off unsubstantiated inneuendo as reliable fact-you bet I have a problem.

When I said nonsense I meant to the defamation exposure. In regards to your comments about whether these journalists would be finished if the tape was proven fake, uh I don't think so. They will simply say-we never said we tested the tape-we only watched it and reported what we saw-that is if it turns up.

What I can certainly tell you is the Star and Gawker would have been advised by a lawyer that they could not pay for the tape as that would be engaging in a possible crime and that is why they incited that ridiculous fund raiser.

If someone witnesses a crime being committed, do they need to present physical evidence before a case can proceed? No. By the same token, a reporter is able, indeed obligated, to report what they see and hear, even if there's no immediate way to verify the truth of it (that's why they are called reporters).

Something else: the Star actually sat on this story precisely because of the ethical quandry of providing money to a questionable source and in order to pursue other lines of inquiry to verify the story. It was only after Gawker blew the story open that the Star decided to run with it, which completely submarines your conspiracy theory. After all, if teh Star was really hell bent on attacking the mayor, why would they sit back and risk getting scooped (which they did)?

[cybercoma]

You're being pedantic ignorant as usual. Evidence that the video exists, is authentic, that it is Ford, that he's doing what they say he's doing if it is him. Take your pick.

your post didn't make sense, so I asked for clarification no need to be so condescending about it. Evn in your clarification you've shown that your post can be interpreted in different ways. How about you just say what you mean, instead of creating a choose-your-own-adventure book with our arguments.

[Keepitsimple]

Rob Ford is a bumbler. Of that there is no doubt. Rob Ford is a poor communicator. Of that there is no doubt. But the constant assertions from the media (mainly the Star) that his mayorship is scandal plagued continues to go unchallenged, continually built up and eventually allowing the feeding frenzy that we now see. Lets take a look at these so-called scandals:

1) The Tuggs Defamation lawsuit "scandal" - a complete farce. Ford said the deal "stunk to high heaven" (before he was mayor)....and he was right. The lawsuit was dismissed with no finding at all of any defamation. The compalinant, George Foulidis was represented by Brian Shiller, a partner of Clayton Ruby.

2) Charitable Football Foundation Conflict of Interest "scandal" - dragged through the courts for collecting $3000 through using Mayor's stationary paper. Councillors voted and by a wide majority found nothing wrong. The technical breach was taken up by a private citizen - Adam Chaleff Freudenhaler - and lawyered pro-bono by Clayton Ruby. Forget about all the details and look at the offense - the man obtained $3000 and gave it all to a charitable foundation to help kids. And that's a scandal? The scandal should have been about the rules that could have caused a Mayor to be booted for doing charitable work.

3) Campaign spending irregularities "scandal" - this scandal - initiated by private citizen Paul Magder, but conceived by family friend Adam Chaleff Freudenhaler - ultimately found that Ford had overspent on campaign expenses by 3% - and that amount was still open to argument. Granted, there were numerous technical violations (as auditors are paid to point out) - but the magnitude of over-spending was just that - 3%. The case aginst Ford was handled by - you guessed it - Clayton Ruby - who applied to the court to have Ford removed from office.

4) Mini "scandals" included the CBC showing up uninvited in Ford's driveway with some old actor dressed as an idiot and Ford demanding that they leave. There was also the Star reporter peeking over the Ford fence trying to catch who-knows-what on camera until he was chased away.

These are the high profile "scandals". You can clearly see the repetition of names. Now that's where the scandal is. A private citizen with an agenda, embolded by a hateful Star, and enabled by a socialist lawyer - trying to thwart civic democracy.

Shame on the media for bullying a mayor who in a more civil world, would be accepted as a well-meaning, cuddly big bear.

[Black Dog]

Rob Ford is a bumbler. Of that there is no doubt. Rob Ford is a poor communicator. Of that there is no doubt. But the constant assertions from the media (mainly the Star) that his mayorship is scandal plagued continues to go unchallenged, continually built up and eventually allowing the feeding frenzy that we now see. Lets take a look at these so-called scandals:

1) The Tuggs Defamation lawsuit "scandal" - a complete farce. Ford said the deal "stunk to high heaven" (before he was mayor)....and he was right. The lawsuit was dismissed with no finding at all of any defamation. The compalinant, George Foulidis was represented by Brian Shiller, a partner of Clayton Ruby.

2) Charitable Football Foundation Conflict of Interest "scandal" - dragged through the courts for collecting $3000 through using Mayor's stationary paper. Councillors voted and by a wide majority found nothing wrong. The technical breach was taken up by a private citizen - Adam Chaleff Freudenhaler - and lawyered pro-bono by Clayton Ruby. Forget about all the details and look at the offense - the man obtained $3000 and gave it all to a charitable foundation to help kids. And that's a scandal? The scandal should have been about the rules that could have caused a Mayor to be booted for doing charitable work.

3) Campaign spending irregularities "scandal" - this scandal - initiated by private citizen Paul Magder, but conceived by family friend Adam Chaleff Freudenhaler - ultimately found that Ford had overspent on campaign expenses by 3% - and that amount was still open to argument. Granted, there were numerous technical violations (as auditors are paid to point out) - but the magnitude of over-spending was just that - 3%. The case aginst Ford was handled by - you guessed it - Clayton Ruby - who applied to the court to have Ford removed from office.

4) Mini "scandals" included the CBC showing up uninvited in Ford's driveway with some old actor dressed as an idiot and Ford demanding that they leave. There was also the Star reporter peeking over the Ford fence trying to catch who-knows-what on camera until he was chased away.

These are the high profile "scandals". You can clearly see the repetition of names. Now that's where the scandal is. A private citizen with an agenda, embolded by a hateful Star, and enabled by a socialist lawyer - trying to thwart civic democracy.

Shame on the media for bullying a mayor who in a more civil world, would be accepted as a well-meaning, cuddly big bear.

Missed a few:

• February 1999: arrested in Florida for drunk driving and drug possession; convicted on the former charge. Denies it during the 2010 Toronto mayoralty race, until presented with the evidence by the Toronto Sun.

  April 2006: police physically remove a drunken Ford from a Toronto Maple Leafs game; an out-of-town couple had asked him to be quiet, and Ford had slurred something about the woman wanting to be “raped and shot.”

  March 2008: Ford is charged with assaulting his wife, and uttering a death threat. The charges are abruptly dropped, in court, due to “inconsistencies” in his wife’s account.

  June 2010: Ford is taped offering to buy a man “hillbilly heroin,” the powerful narcotic OxyContin. On the tape, he says he doesn’t know any dealers, but “I’ll f**king try to find it.”

  July 2011: a woman spots Ford on his cell phone while driving; when she reminds him it is a bad idea, he gives her – and her six-year-old daughter – the finger.

  December 2011: Ford’s mother-in-law calls police, saying that her son-in-law has been drinking, and is threatening to take his children to the U.S., against his wife’s wishes.

  August 2012: Ford is photographed reading papers while driving on a Toronto-area highway.

  March 2012, June 2012, November 2012, February 2013, March 2013: photos and media reports circulate of Ford being intoxicated in public.

[g_bambino]

I wonder where did people get the idea that Rob Ford smokes crack then.

From their own flawed process of deduction, I suppose.

[g_bambino]

Here is the legal point. There was never any basis for a defamation law suit.

Well, I said possibly making themselves vulnerable to a law suit because I meant that such could come down on them if it were ever found out that this whole thing were fabricated--i.e. there never was a video. Of course, proving a negative is difficult; but, other information (emails?) about collusion between The Star's journalists and Gawker's editor could come out. Who knows? But such conspiracy seems highly unlikely, which was my point: the probability of the video existing is upheld by the unlikelihood that people would put themselves at risk lying about its existence.

They reported they only watched it. They never say they tested the video. They merely watched it. That was deliberate-it meant they were covered from being sued but knew they could still run an unsubstantiated piece of information whose sole purpose was to attack the character of the Mayor..

Watching it was the test: it's credibility rested upon it being both being convincing (after three consecutive views) and the difficulty of making such a convincing video. Saying they watched such a video doesn't attack the character of the Mayor; it merely puts it in question. But, when considering that question, all the surrounding considerations and events have to be taken into account: the likelihood of journalists from two media sources in two countries conspiring to make a false story; the difficulty in making a convincing fake video; the photo of Ford with drug dealers, one now dead; the absence of a response from the Mayor for a week and then the dodgy statements that eventually came from both he and his brother; the mass resignations from the mayoral staff; Ford's history of lying about illicit or improper behavour (driving drunk, smoking weed, getting intoxicated and belligerent). Most of that was not the doing of The Star.

Those journalists had no intention themselves of buying the tape. Never. They would have been advised of exactly what I just said.

That is why they wanted the public to buy the video.

My understanding, from watching the CBC, is that it is a long-standing, morally and logistically based convention that Canadian media outlets don't pay for information from sources; it wasn't just The Star that didn't pay for the video and isn't just the video that no media has bought.