Mayor Rob Ford's Toronto

[GraphicMatt]

The CBC would only be at fault if they fabricated the source (a very serious breach). It is their job to report allegations...not verify them . It will then be their job to report a verification, if there is one.

The allegations have nothing to do with the CBC or THH22M. To suggest they do is to support a red herring.

Journalists do have an obligation to verify allegations as much as possible. Otherwise, you're the National Enquirer.

That said, it sounds like CBC had enough independent reports of the 911 call that they felt it was a solid bet for a story. Should they have waited and got on-the-record comments from Blair and others? That's hard to say, especially because it seems unlikely that anyone would want to comment on the story before it blew up.

[bobbob911]

The CBC would only be at fault if they fabricated the source (a very serious breach). It is their job to report allegations...not verify them . It will then be their job to report a verification, if there is one.

The allegations have nothing to do with the CBC or THH22M. To suggest they do is to support a red herring.

You dont think at this point the CBC has a responsibility to either put up proof to back up thier side of the story, or issue a retraction? I think any serious journalist (and *especially* the CBC given its crown corporation status) would have the moral (if not the legal) duty to do so. To let the story fade into history as-is reduces the CBC to no better than a supermarket tabloid rag.

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well at this point I am not sure if one should take Blair's word for it - he has enough conflict of interests with Fraud such that I can think of quite a few reasons why he'd want to bury this one (budget, threat of a very public investigation of leaks, etc). And his reputation has been tarnished post G-20 in such a way that one should scrutinize the veracity of his claims on all fronts. Ideally a neutral third party should be the one to verify the claims, or Fraud himself can release those tapes, though somehow I think the latter won't happen. As expected, it turned into a case of he said/she said.

AoD

[doug]

I think any serious journalist (and *especially* the CBC given its crown corporation status) would have the moral (if not the legal) duty to do so.

Isn't the Harper government trying to do away with this "must only report the truth" stuff?

[bobbob911]

Well at this point I am not sure if one should take Blair's word for it - he has enough conflict of interests with Fraud such that I can think of quite a few reasons why he'd want to bury this one (budget, threat of a very public investigation of leaks, etc). And his reputation has been tarnished post G-20 in such a way that one should scrutinize the veracity of his claims on all fronts. Ideally a neutral third party should be the one to verify the claims, or Fraud himself can release those tapes, though somehow I think the latter won't happen. As expected, it turned into a case of he said/she said.

AoD

Irrelevant - the burden of proof is on the CBC as the one making the claim. Its not on Ford or Blair to offer up proof to refute the claim.

[AlvinofDiaspar]

bobbob911:

Actually no - journalists aren't suppose to reveal their sources - if they are, you won't hear much news, much less investigative journalism. This isn't a court of law. Besides, why is there such a reluctance on the part of those who can to release the tapes, if there is nothing to fear? Instead we are supposed to base our faith on trust?

AoD

[Marko]

Journalists do have an obligation to verify allegations as much as possible. Otherwise, you're the National Enquirer.

That said, it sounds like CBC had enough independent reports of the 911 call that they felt it was a solid bet for a story. Should they have waited and got on-the-record comments from Blair and others? That's hard to say, especially because it seems unlikely that anyone would want to comment on the story before it blew up.

I agree with this. It sounds like the CBC heard from more than one party that there was some profanity in a 911 call made by Ford - admitted by Ford he used the F-bomb - but it doesn't sound like they trued very hard to get a copy of the tape, or to even have it played for them over the phone. It sounds to me like one source gave them an embellished quote (I'm Rob Ford, bitches!) and that since it was corroborated that he did call and he did swear, they used what they had.

Irrelevant - the burden of proof is on the CBC as the one making the claim. Its not on Ford or Blair to offer up proof to refute the claim.

Agree with this also. The CBC is different than the Enquirer in that they hold themselves to be the standard for news in this country. They aren't simply reporting that Rob Ford "allegedly" said these things, they are saying that multiple sources verify it. They have the police chief of the city refuting the quotes the CBC has been using, so either the CBC has to provide proof, or retract the comments and issue an apology.

It doesn't matter if you support or oppose Ford on this, the CBC has done damage to themselves and to whatever sources they have burned by saying "including a dispatcher". It is well within Blair's job to root out anyone who is leaking confidential info to the media - the CBC may as well have named them - and if they're going to burn others to save their own asses, it really does expose them as more of an Enquirer than a state broadcaster. If they get sued, it comes out of your pocket too.

[nfitz]

Irrelevant - the burden of proof is on the CBC as the one making the claim.

Given how quickly Ford apologized for losing his temper with the 911 operators and swearing, it's quite clear that there was something grossly inappropriate about the call. The police have made it clear, that they can release the recording of the calls to Ford, who can then release it to the media. As Ford has not done so, presumably the call is as incriminating as described, even if the CBC didn't nail the exact wording.

[bobbob911]

In return for that protection, journalists are not supposed to make up "sources". And when the preponderance of evidence is leaning towards the "sources" being wrong (as they seem to be in this case), its time to either counter with real facts or retract. Instead the CBC seems to be simply retrenching that they were told some stuff by some people and clearly they could not be incorrect.

"Besides, why is there such a reluctance on the part of those who can to release the tapes, if there is nothing to fear?"

What a horrible precedent to set - now the news can accuse anyone of anything and its up to them to disprove it? That's BS.

[GraphicMatt]

I'd agree that there is something embarrassing about the content of the 911 calls, which is why Ford didn't immediately release them. Blair has confirmed repeatedly that the tapes would be released if Ford asked for them.

My take on the CBC thing: they probably should have held back a bit, and run the story claiming that Ford was rude to the 911 operators and used profane language. That would have held up.

[bobbob911]

Given how quickly Ford apologized for losing his temper with the 911 operators and swearing, it's quite clear that there was something grossly inappropriate about the call. The police have made it clear, that they can release the recording of the calls to Ford, who can then release it to the media. As Ford has not done so, presumably the call is as incriminating as described, even if the CBC didn't nail the exact wording.

I suspect Rob Ford was pulling a hissy fit and sounds rather silly on the calls - which is why he's embarassed to have the audio released. But at this point (as much as I would like it to be so! ) I dont think he insulted the 911 workers or called himself "Rob Fucking Ford". The fact that he swore during the call is silly - who cares about that. The fact he even called 911 in the first place is stupid, but Rob Ford is stupid.

[Marko]

Given how quickly Ford apologized for losing his temper with the 911 operators and swearing, it's quite clear that there was something grossly inappropriate about the call. The police have made it clear, that they can release the recording of the calls to Ford, who can then release it to the media. As Ford has not done so, presumably the call is as incriminating as described, even if the CBC didn't nail the exact wording.

Right. Ford admits he lost his cool and admits he did swear, so for this reason alone he doesn't want tapes released that would (further) tarnish his rep. If the police chief can't be trusted, then the CBC needs to prove their claims. Not only would they be proven right, but they would also be proving the police chief lied - an equally large story that you'd think they would like to expose if true, no? I think the only thing one can conclude is that they can't, so they should retract.

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That precedent has always been around, it's not an invention for this case. Besides, like I said, this is not a legal argument, and it exists a very simple solution to the situation at hand. Unwillingness to take it is suggestive of something. Since you're going all legal - may I suggest that the "accused" have a long history of denial and stonewalling? I think there is a VERY good reason for being suspicious, to say the least. If you are going to argue on behalf of benevolence, looking at track record matters - and frankly it isn't there.

I do agree with you swearing isn't the issue, but the hissy fit is - we don't let children run as candidates for a reason, and we do judge whether someone is fit to lead or not on that basis. Him calling 911 can be legit - clearly not in this case but that's besides the point.

AoD

[bobbob911]

I do agree with you swearing isn't the issue, but the hissy fit is - we don't let children run as candidates for a reason, and we do judge whether someone is fit to lead or not on that basis. Him calling 911 can be legit - clearly not in this case but that's besides the point.

If all you are interested in is a judge of character from these tapes, then I would suggest there can't be anything there that isnt already in the public record from his past meltdowns. We already know Rob Ford is a big fat man child!

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Being on the mayor's chair carries with mayoral expectations and responsibilities. His past meltdowns - while illustrative - can only be judged on the basis of his previous role as councillor. There are higher expectations from the holder of the current office.

AoD