Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

[g_bambino]

Ditto.

Since you can't prove it doesn't exist, I trust you'll stop saying so emphatically that it doesn't exist.

[WWWTT]

A journalist that reports something this serious and it turns out to be false, worse still that they knew it was false to begin with, would never work in journalism again. They would be a liability, so no one would hire them. That's why their careers are in jeopardy.

Not to mention the libel lawsuits!

That's the real kicker here.

If everyone was out to get the Ford brothers,then go to court.

WWWTT

[Shady]

Since you can't prove it doesn't exist, I trust you'll stop saying so emphatically that it doesn't exist.

Since you can't prove it does exist, I trust you'll stop saying so emphatically that it does.

[Shady]

Not to mention the libel lawsuits!

That's the real kicker here.

If everyone was out to get the Ford brothers,then go to court.

WWWTT

No need to worry about libel lawsuits. They can just claim that there was indeed a video, and that now it's disappeared. Conveniently.

[Guest American Woman]

Right. But you won't address the matter of how unlikely it is that drug dealers in an Etobicoke ghetto would be able to orchestrate the production of a convincing fake video. Instead, you just edited that part out of your quote of me, but, in your response, used the point that the police haven't seen the video in order to once more cast doubt on the authenticity of it, anyway.

Try to understand this, as I don't know how to put it any more plainly or simply.

My stance is not to cast doubt on the authenticity of it.

My stance is that we don't know, and that circumstances such as Ford's past behavior and that of his inner circle have no bearing on whether or not it is authentic. I have been objecting to the reaction being the same as if the video were known to be authentic. I have been objecting to this type of journalism. I have been objecting to the idea that the word of the two journalists who it was shown to is proof of anything. They don't know if it's authentic.

Again. I believe journalists don't tell the news any more so much as they say what people, their audience, want to hear; and as long as people are good with that, accepting of it, jumping on the bandwagon, journalistic standards are not going to improve. Actually, for the most part, I think people only want to read what they believe. At any rate, I doubt if most people even heard of Gawker before this, yet its 'journalistic integrity' is gold? Along with two reporters, both from The Star? - a very liberal leaning media?

I would hope people would be a bit more discerning regarding what they believe; ie: require a bit more proof. In this case, as I've pointed out, no proof required. If the video never sees the light of day, which is entirely possible, it will have basically done as much damage as if it were out there, authenticated, and viewed by all. THAT is what I object to.

The level of plausibility or implausibility is not a determining factor as to whether or not the video is authentic. It's possible to fake, and that's the bottom line.

[g_bambino]

Since you can't prove it does exist, I trust you'll stop saying so emphatically that it does.

Show me where I said emphaticlly that it does.

[g_bambino]

My stance is that we don't know...

Why continually focus on that obvious fact if not to attempt to somehow pull the point that it's far more plausible the video's authentic down to an, at best, equal footing to which the far less plausible idea that it's a fake has been raised?

[Guest American Woman]

Why continually focus on that obvious fact if not to attempt to somehow pull the point that it's far more plausible the video's authentic down to an, at best, equal footing to which the far less plausible idea that it's a fake has been raised?

I continually focus on "that obvious fact" because so many seem to be oblivious to "that obvious fact" and I clearly stated why I'm focusing on it.

Whether or not it's more plausible or more implausible that it's authentic based on the difficulty of making such a video, as well as Ford's past behavior and that of his inner circle, shouldn't even be a consideration in determining if it's authentic or not as it has no bearing on whether it's authentic or not - and that people think it does is why our standards of journalistic integrity are so low these days.

All one has to do, apparently, is come up with something that's believable based on a person's past behavior - and we can determine that it's most likely true - and present it as such??

I would sure hope not. Yet that seems to be the case. The evidence seems to have disappeared, yet it's as if the evidence were out there for all to have seen, including experts. No actual evidence needed. THAT is what I am taking issue with. THAT is what I will keep the focus on.

Edited June 16, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Today I Learned American Woman doesn't believe in civil litigation.

[Guest American Woman]

Today I Learned American Woman doesn't believe in civil litigation.

Civil litigation involves the legal knowledge of a judge, along with a courtroom, and interrogation of both parties. Try not to speak for me. :angry:

[GostHacked]

Today I Learned American Woman doesn't believe in civil litigation.

Whoa whoa there Mr. Cybercoma, you leave those TIL threads for something like Reddit !!!!

[g_bambino]

Whether or not it's more plausible or more implausible that it's authentic based on the difficulty of making such a video... shouldn't even be a consideration in determining if it's authentic or not....

What are you talking about? My original comment was about belief in the plausible versus the implausible; the two examples of the latter I raised being, to quote myself, "drug dealers producing a convincing fake video of Rob Ford smoking crack [and] a conspiracy theory of journalists from two media sources in two countries and now the Toronto Police teaming up to make a false story about a video of Rob Ford smoking crack." You subsequently made the claim that, since the police haven't seen the video, they, to quote you, "have no idea of its authenticity." To have no idea of its authenticity requires a deliberate ignorance of the likelihood of never-before-been filmmakers achieving the complex task of creating a convincing fake video of a mayor smoking crack. That likelihood is exactly what gives one--or, should give one--a good idea about the film's authenticity. The more facts like what we know about these people who are (or were) peddling this video and the complexity of creating a convincing fake video of someone doing something in a specific context, the more the possibility that the video is authentic is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One could almost say those facts alone achieve that end.

[ed.: punct.]

Edited June 16, 2013 by g_bambino

[On Guard for Thee]

If Rob Ford was innocent he would have done what you or I would have done having been wrongly accused: pound our fist on the table and say Bull....t.

And go ahead and prove me wrong, bring the video to a shop where it will be shown to be fake, and now I'm going to carry on with my life. He did nothing like that. Tell's me something. The silence is deafening.

[scribblet]

Sometimes it's better not to do that as it just gives them credibility. No answer would make them happy unless it was a confession. In other words, maybe he didn't want to get into wallowing with the pigs.

[Boges]

If Rob Ford was innocent he would have done what you or I would have done having been wrongly accused: pound our fist on the table and say Bull....t.

And go ahead and prove me wrong, bring the video to a shop where it will be shown to be fake, and now I'm going to carry on with my life. He did nothing like that. Tell's me something. The silence is deafening.

That certainly gave this story fuel for a while. The first week he didn't comment much at all. He said it was because of his legal council.

And suing media organizations for never actually saying he smoked crack would prove to be difficult. It's all about these unnamed sources who no one knows.

[Boges]

Rob Ford interfered with some innocent person trying to dispose of a drink this weekend.

The tyrant got the lady charged with assault too. When will this monster be stopped!!!!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/06/16/toronto-rob-ford-drink-hurt.html

[guyser]

That certainly gave this story fuel for a while. The first week he didn't comment much at all. He said it was because of his legal council.

Likely another lie.

Council for the radio station Ford flounders at said exactly that.He knows who Fords lawyer and knows he would never advise the client that way.

No council would advise silence when one is innocent.

Poor Rob , too stupid to see what a mess he is in. Ford Crack Nation for the win !

[PIK]

So ford gets attacked and no mention. That juice could have been acid and what did ford do, took the high road, something the others need to learn.

[Boges]

That incident will probably finally get him to hire a security detail.

[guyser]

So ford gets attacked and no mention. That juice could have been acid and what did ford do, took the high road, something the others need to learn.

Gosh , it could have been a nuclear bomb...or or....a high dose of deadly radiation...or or....some crack......if it was a KFC sandwich it would have hit him right in the mouth...gulp.

One can see it was mentioned earlier , but knowing Crack Nation supporters, they dont like to see what is right in front of their eyes.

[Black Dog]

So ford gets attacked and no mention.

He got a drink thrown on him. He's done worse.

That juice could have been acid and what did ford do, took the high road, something the others need to learn.

What other road was available? You think he should get props for not beating the shit out of the woman or something?

[Black Dog]

That incident will probably finally get him to hire a security detail.

I wonder if they'll be able to keep track of him, given his propensity to vanish for large stretches of time.

[Rue]

Funny how a story with such flimsy foundations keeps on chugging along with new pieces falling around every day.

But here's the thing: ultimately, if it comes out that Ford smokes crack, it won't tell us anything we don't already know about him. And if he's exonerated, he'll still be Rob Ford.

...and you of course will dig deep when Olivia Chow is elected to find out what drugs she ingests. lol.

[The_Squid]

...and you of course will dig deep when Olivia Chow is elected to find out what drugs she ingests. lol.

Why would you think she takes drugs?

[Shady]

Why would you think she takes drugs?

I think the burden is on her to prove otherwise. That's what the media's taught us with the Ford "scandal".