News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apparently, Ford is going to the Dallas Cowboys game tomorrow, before he comes back home. Maybe he still thinks Michael Irvin plays for the Cowboys and he can score some crack off him?
 
How did I know that a football game would be part of this music copying, job creating trip.
 
...and Los Angeles does not currently have an NFL franchise yet and there is much greater demand than here.
 
Note the smoothing of Ford's profile in the news as opposed to his actions in city hall. If people watch the livestream of city hall meetings, I'm sure their opinions would change as well.

Is There Media Bias Against Rob Ford?
Jeff Halperin: "The crack story is too elaborate to be made up"
OCTOBER 3RD, 2013

As far as mayors go, Ford is one of a kind. When I started writing about city hall, my intention was to write about things that would affect Toronto decades from now. But the job demanded that I weigh in on crack and its alleged use. Still, scandals aside, city hall writers, forced to constantly read about Ford and see him everyday, can’t help but disapprove. Is this bias at play, or proximity? Many believe that not only is there a unified thing called “the media,” but that it conspires to slander Ford at every turn. This lumps every city hall writer into one easily rejected category. With an election in about a year it concerns me that the media can be written off wholesale. I will discuss bias from the perspective of a city hall writer.

If a scientist receives money from a tobacco company to withhold his real opinion and publicly proclaims that cigarettes are healthy, that’s an easy, unambiguous case of bias. Bias is more complex in journalism. Is it bias when a writer from a so-called left or right wing publication feels they can’t deviate from their publication’s opinion, lest they be fired? Or, is it bias when, left to their own freewill, the writer’s opinion invariably conforms to the publication because they were hired for their skewed perspective in the first place?

Some might call the Toronto Standard a left wing publication (ed: many would not), but my commentary has not been restrained in even the slightest. A cynic might reasonably believe I was hired because my outlook wasn’t expected to clash with the publication. It’s true that put together my articles about the mayor present an unbroken series of criticism, usually harsh, but this doesn’t mean I am biased. It’s not like my DNA makes me hate Ford, and I have decent proof.

I voted for Ford. I have made this confession in print, unsolicited, before ever becoming a city hall writer, and whenever I talk politics I’m deliberately upfront about this.

My time in OISE teacher’s college—the epicenter of radical left wing politics and a fetid breeding ground for left wing philistinism in art, and in general—scarred the hell out of me, and predisposed me towards voting Ford simply because he was against everything OISE. I didn’t like Ford, but to reflect my feeling most felicitously was to not vote at all, and I didn’t want that. I disavowed Ford well before becoming a city hall reporter, to be sure, but only because his buffoonery was powerful enough to counteract my hatred for lefty catchphrases. Ultimately, I have no pre-determined allegiance to the left or the right, terms I use generally but distrust.

I half-joke that the only thing preventing my complete disillusionment in politics is that only one leader or one party have the power to commit abominations at a time.

My opinions don’t fall neatly along left or right wing lines. I value my independence, my ideological aloofness, above everything. I know people who voted Ford and will again. I get why they support him, and I don’t think they’re crazy or stupid people. They are wrong, though. I bet the Ford people I know, and likely many others, would change their vote if they were exposed to a city hall writer’s diet of daily reading, not to mention, of course, what I’ve witnessed with my own eyes in meetings with city council and various committees. Exposed to this, approval of Ford is impossible. That those who watch Ford daily seem to all agree that he is unfit for his office isn’t evidence of collusion, but the reasonable response to proximity.

I imagine veteran city hall reporters have seen enough stupidity from the left and right politicians to become much more detached than the sad readers (not all readers… I’m sure you are lovely!) littering comment boards—“bleeding-heart leftards,” “libertarian Rand scum,” etc. I think the knowledge gap between people who do and don’t read the news is as large as the gap between people who read the news and people who write it. Of course, there’s variation within the groups (I’m not equating my knowledge set with people who have been on the scene for years), but really, you can’t read the news the same way after you’ve witnessed it unfold. Different papers cast exactly what you saw in different lights, or leave out something major (not out of malice, necessarily, but space). Political inflections match or don’t match the print.

“Biased” Ford critics couldn’t have asked for more ammunition, of course; try to recount all the ugly, sordid, and illegal things he’s been accused of since becoming mayor and you’ll find that what you have forgotten about surpasses by far anything associated with any previous mayor.

It’s often noted that the Toronto Star has it in for Ford, that they’re The Sun but from the left. Either they write articles on petty trivialities or have a suspicious amount of bombs to drop. In other words, their vigilant reporting, not necessarily the reporting itself, is a negative. Those who trash them might imagine the following editorial meeting: the boss says, “This mayor stinks, keep reporting on him!” Or, just as bad, for a different administration the boss says, “Back off of this mayor, I like him.” Reporters can’t be accused of reporting too much, just badly.

The public understands how a member of the media could distort or fabricate a story to advance their career. I don’t think the media is morally above falsifying news, but, practically speaking, the crack story is too elaborate to be made up. It’s beyond anyone’s capability. It’s also too buttressed to be phony, even if it has all but the definitive proof needed to charge Ford.

No, The Star and others have done excellent reporting on Ford, and even if the results are overwhelmingly slanted against him, it doesn’t mean it’s biased. The notion that “fair” journalism presents two equally strong cases is modern stupidity. A competent reporter does weigh all sides, of course, but only presents what their professional judgment deems pertinent. If they fail in this, if their article contains bad reporting despite their self-interested concern for upholding the publication’s reputation and avoiding lawsuits, then criticize it. But only then.

Otherwise, blame the times, not “biased” publications, when the news plays out everyday like an absurd farce. Remember this in the lead up to the election.
Click to expand...
http://www.torontostandard.com/the-sprawl/is-there-amedia-bias-against-ford
 
Last edited:
Something that a couple others her noticed that also struck me as odd was Doug's use of the word "extortion" in reference to Gawker and the video sellers.

I have no earthly idea how Gawker, The Star, or any media outlet could be "extorted" with respect to the video. They either pay the asking price or they don't. I do, however, have a very good idea how the Fords could be "extorted" by the video sellers.

So I absolutely agree that Siad et al. went to the Fords first. Think back to McArthur at the Press Commission hearings. They spent months trying to get anyone to speak on the record. People aren't exactly rushing to the media with damaging stories about the Fords. Most people with dirt on the Fords (justifiably) fear retribution.

So why did Foug use the word "extortion"? Becase even pathologically lying sociopaths occasionally let the truth slip out.
 
TinyTiny said:
One thing that has bugged me since Project Traveler is the fact that the shooter in the Anthony Smith case was rapidly processed with a highly unusual plea down to manslaughter. At first I thought this smacked of cover-up, but what if the deal was given in exchange for the shooter to turn states-witness? To testify on who called in the hit in the first place?.
Click to expand...

I felt the same about the plea deal. Very sketchy. I've searched a little bit for older articles about the Smith murder because I remember them describing it, in general, as a "gangland execution-style hit."

There's this: http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...eadly_shooting_outside_toronto_nightclub.html

Telling line: "Schertzer said Smith was the intended target of the “very bold” shooting."

Then, when articles on the plea deal came out, Hashimi's account was that he and his friends were being attacked by Smith and he used the gun in self-defense. In the articles, everyone involved seemed oddly enthusiastic about confirming this version of events. I find it really hard to believe that Smith is beating up Hashimi's friend---a moving target---Hashimi is drunk, high and panicking, but then manages to shoot Smith in the back of the head?

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...lty_plea_in_anthony_smith_shooting_death.html
 
Rob Ford & Douglas Ford are Toronto's own super heroes, Fatman & Colonic.

(with all due respect to Kevin Smith)
 
SFO said:
I felt the same about the plea deal. Very sketchy. I've searched a little bit for older articles about the Smith murder because I remember them describing it, in general, as a "gangland execution-style hit."

There's this: http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...eadly_shooting_outside_toronto_nightclub.html

Telling line: "Schertzer said Smith was the intended target of the “very bold” shooting."

Then, when articles on the plea deal came out, Hashimi's account was that he and his friends were being attacked by Smith and he used the gun in self-defense. In the articles, everyone involved seemed oddly enthusiastic about confirming this version of events. I find it really hard to believe that Smith is beating up Hashimi's friend---a moving target---Hashimi is drunk, high and panicking, but then manages to shoot Smith in the back of the head?

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...lty_plea_in_anthony_smith_shooting_death.html
Click to expand...

based on what i read here...

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/defence-of-intoxication

and here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(Canadian_law)

it probably shouldn't have been reduced past 2nd degree murder. the fact that it's manslaughter must mean something is up... good or bad.
 
SFO said:
I felt the same about the plea deal. Very sketchy. I've searched a little bit for older articles about the Smith murder because I remember them describing it, in general, as a "gangland execution-style hit."

There's this: http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...eadly_shooting_outside_toronto_nightclub.html

Telling line: "Schertzer said Smith was the intended target of the “very bold†shooting."
Click to expand...

Interesting. Joyce Schertzer is one of the detectives connected with the special squad tasked with investigating the Mayor and his associates.
 
soimelk said:
Interesting. Joyce Schertzer is one of the detectives connected with the special squad tasked with investigating the Mayor and his associates.
Click to expand...

her police officer husband has had troubles...

Joyce Schertzer, his third and current wife and a promising detective on the Toronto police homicide squad, would stand by him through the many years of scrutiny and accusation. When her schedule allowed, she would be in court by his side.
Click to expand...

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/06/29/saga_of_a_toronto_police_drug_squad.html

for an update...

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2..._squad_officers_get_45_days_house_arrest.html
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top