@VTB, the info satisfied their editorial board, much like the info on the "alleged" crack video.
P.S. can't read your previous post, text too small.
Here it is, typed out:
Speaking as someone who has struggled in the past with my own substance abuse issues (primarily involving heroin and crack), I would normally disapprove of a newspaper publishing details of anyone’s activities while in rehab. A private citizen is entitled to have their patient confidentiality protected, and their privacy respected.
However, I do not agree that such should be the case with a (very) public figure, when that public figure insists on running for office while using their fresh (and likely incomplete) rehab stint as part of their campaign narrative. When that same public figure goes so far as to speak with a friendly reporter while in rehab, and encourages others in that rehab to speak favourably of said public figure to said friendly reporter, one could reasonably conclude that the public figure in question has voluntarily WAIVED their right to confidentiality.
Rob Ford has made his rehab “success story†a central part of his re-election strategy. It is definitely NOT in the public interest to allow him to provide only HIS chosen narrative while declining to confirm or investigate the truth of the narrative he is providing. On the contrary, this story, which relates Rob Ford’s disruptive behaviour while in rehab, is actually in the vital public interest, because we are being asked to assess Ford as a candidate on a number of character issues: truthfulness, ability to work with others, and whether or not he is a bully (sober or not).
IF Rob Ford were merely a private citizen, and IF Rob Ford were not running for re-election as mayor, and IF there were not already myriad examples of Rob Ford’s mendacity, violent tendencies, and anti-social behaviour, this story might be considered inappropriate. But given the circumstances, it most definitely is not.
Richard Feren
Writer, @TOMayorFrod
