Urban Toronto - Powered by vBulletin
UrbanToronto News - the latest headlines
Exploring the Future Office Spaces of Allied REIT's QRC West
ALSO
Page 306 of 6664 FirstFirst ... 2062562963043053063073083163564068061306 ... LastLast
Results 4,576 to 4,590 of 99949

Thread: Rob Ford's Toronto

  1. Default

    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
    Last edited by AlvinofDiaspar; 2011-Oct-31 at 10:11.


  2. #4577

    Default

    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?

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlvinofDiaspar View Post
    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.

  4. Default

    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

  5. #4580
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Absolute
    Posts
    812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GraphicMatt View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbob911 View Post
    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.

  6. #4581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbob911 View Post
    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.

  7. Default

    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.

  8. #4583
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,039

    Default

    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.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nfitz View Post
    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.

  10. #4585
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Absolute
    Posts
    812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nfitz View Post
    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.

  11. Default

    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
    Last edited by AlvinofDiaspar; 2011-Oct-31 at 11:27.

  12. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlvinofDiaspar View Post
    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!

  13. Default

    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

  14. #4589
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bridgetown, Barbados. No, really!
    Posts
    1,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlvinofDiaspar View Post
    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
    Ford can stop the 'he said, she said' by releasing the tape. It cannot make him look any worse than he already does. I suspect, though (and this is just because Dougie and Mammoliti absolutely cannot tell the truth if a lie would sound better), that he can't release the tape because he was much more berating than he claims. He may or may not have used specific words/phrases, but I bet he was angry and abusive -- because he almost always is when he's angry, even in public forums.

    That tape won't come out from the Ford camp. It might get leaked -- we'll see.

  15. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbob911 View Post
    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.
    Wrongo bongo. Multiple independent sources made a claim that has not been refuted with proof. Bliar's statement is weasel-worded to the extreme and appears as though it would crumble under cross examination (You say the word "Bitches" was not used. How about the word "Bitch"?).

    The only way to clear this up is to release the tapes. What's wrong, Fatty Fraud, dontcha wanna clear your good name?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •