Rob Ford's Toronto

[detroitbootybass]

The unfuckwithable guy is a lunatic, he can never back up anything he says, constantly makes promises to blow everything wide open and convinently dissapears before he can. He's either an enourmous attention whore or has some sadly untreated mental health issues that need to be addressed.

A little from column A; a little from column B.

 

[Marko]

The StarCom GTA News Tuesday, August 20, 2013
11:32 PM EDT

Guess Ford and Doug will turn down the invitation.

They are opening these hearings based on 41 complaints, most of them anonymous. Am I the only one who finds it a little odd that they are planning 2 full days of hearings? How many of these anonymous complaints to they expect to hear in person, and from whom? Does it not strike anybody as odd that they are inviting the Fords to lodge complaints? If the Fords did so on their own, then of course they would be invited to speak to the complaints they filed, but that hasn't happened.

This doesn't pass the smell test for me. The OPC is a group comprised of - and controlled by - media organizations. They have no legal standing to request anything from anyone other than their members. They're effectively standing there with their fishing rods, asking the Fords to jump in the water and "please put this hook through your cheek". On what planet does it make sense for the Fords (or anyone, really) to allow themselves to be questioned on legal matters by a non-legal entity that is specifically seeking to expose the information gained through these hearings?

It's like inviting Conrad Black to please file a complaint against any of the articles written about him, so that he can come in and clarify his activities.

 

[OSS 117]

They are opening these hearings based on 41 complaints, most of them anonymous. Am I the only one who finds it a little odd that they are planning 2 full days of hearings? How many of these anonymous complaints to they expect to hear in person, and from whom? Does it not strike anybody as odd that they are inviting the Fords to lodge complaints? If the Fords did so on their own, then of course they would be invited to speak to the complaints they filed, but that hasn't happened.

This doesn't pass the smell test for me. The OPC is a group comprised of - and controlled by - media organizations. They have no legal standing to request anything from anyone other than their members. They're effectively standing there with their fishing rods, asking the Fords to jump in the water and "please put this hook through your cheek". On what planet does it make sense for the Fords (or anyone, really) to allow themselves to be questioned on legal matters by a non-legal entity that is specifically seeking to expose the information gained through these hearings?

It's like inviting Conrad Black to please file a complaint against any of the articles written about him, so that he can come in and clarify his activities.

Well, yeah, it's obviously disingenuous. But it does serve the purpose of letting people know that the Fords are simply full of hot air and bluster when they go on about how unfairly they've been treated by the media. This is all about saying "You want to set the record straight and stick it to The Star, here's your chance," which, of course, is an offer only an innocent person would be willing to accept.

 

[guitarchitect]

They are opening these hearings based on 41 complaints, most of them anonymous. Am I the only one who finds it a little odd that they are planning 2 full days of hearings? How many of these anonymous complaints to they expect to hear in person, and from whom? Does it not strike anybody as odd that they are inviting the Fords to lodge complaints? If the Fords did so on their own, then of course they would be invited to speak to the complaints they filed, but that hasn't happened.

This doesn't pass the smell test for me. The OPC is a group comprised of - and controlled by - media organizations. They have no legal standing to request anything from anyone other than their members. They're effectively standing there with their fishing rods, asking the Fords to jump in the water and "please put this hook through your cheek". On what planet does it make sense for the Fords (or anyone, really) to allow themselves to be questioned on legal matters by a non-legal entity that is specifically seeking to expose the information gained through these hearings?

It's like inviting Conrad Black to please file a complaint against any of the articles written about him, so that he can come in and clarify his activities.

Sure, you could make the case that no one in their right mind would do it. But so long as someone has made a complaint regarding a specific story, it is only fair for the OPC to extend an invitation to the subject of that story to make a case for themselves, and to give weight to the complaint. Imagine the cries of bias that would result if the OPC didn't actually allow the affected party to do so?

It's sort of funny in this case, to be honest - if what I'm saying is right, the OPC owns the gallows and it's Ford nation that has strung up the noose. By making these complaints, they have put the ball in the Ford's court to now formally, on the record, refute the claims. If the Fords don't do it, it implicitly makes them look like they have something to hide.

I wonder how many of the anonymous calls were David Price?

 

[Marko]

Well, yeah, it's obviously disingenuous. But it does serve the purpose of letting people know that the Fords are simply full of hot air and bluster when they go on about how unfairly they've been treated by the media.

Should the OPC really be used by its members as a weapon against outsiders, though?

Does the fact that a group of media outlets are using their quasi-regulatory body in such a way not damage the OPC's credibility greatly?

If the OPC really be used in this unprecedented way against Ford, aren't they proving his claims of unfairness at least partially correct?

Sure, you could make the case that no one in their right mind would do it. But so long as someone has made a complaint regarding a specific story, it is only fair for the OPC to extend an invitation to the subject of that story to make a case for themselves, and to give weight to the complaint.

That's not what they're doing though - they are inviting the Fords themselves to make a complaint, so they can hear that complaint out.

It's sort of funny in this case, to be honest - if what I'm saying is right, the OPC owns the gallows and it's Ford nation that has strung up the noose. By making these complaints, they have put the ball in the Ford's court to now formally, on the record, refute the claims. If the Fords don't do it, it implicitly makes them look like they have something to hide.

I wonder how many of the anonymous calls were David Price?

It's probable that some Ford supporters are making complaints, but the "offending party" here is not the Fords, its the papers named in the complaint. There is no formal need for Ford to dispute the claims - it's the responsibility of the named party to prove them. The only way the Fords have to be involved is if they themselves lodge a complaint, which they have not and would be stupid to do.

As for the anonymous complaints, we don't know if some of them were David Price or if they were stooges of the OPC. Probably both, but this only proceeds the way it is - with 2 days of hearings - if there is a critical mass of complaints to give the appearance of it being a big deal. If there were only 2 formal complaints and 39 anonymous ones, I'm not sure that's the case. The fact that the OPC is being used in the way - as an inquisition of sorts - leads me to think that most of the anonymous complaints were bogus.

 

[TCalnan]

I think that's stretching things to breaking point there. The two complainants that were named can hardly be considered friends of The Star or The Globe. They're both defenders of the Fords. They made the complaints and the hearings were set up. The Globe and The Star had nothing to do with it. If they didn't invite the Fords to have some input in the proceedings, then that would definitely be a reason for complaint.

 

[guitarchitect]

Should the OPC really be used by its members as a weapon against outsiders, though?

It's strange that you're characterizing the OPC's invitation for the Fords to defend themselves as "a weapon against outsiders". Are you suggesting that Anti-Ford citizens (or OPC members) made the complaints anonymously, hoping that the OPC would try to get the Fords in to grill them? Because I really don't think that's the case. The OPC is acting upon the complaints made by those who included a name/contact with their complaint (they do not accept anonymous complaints), and those people are Ford supporters. The OPC is following its procedure for handling one of these complaints, which is to hold a hearing where the subject of the complaint is invited to articulate the inaccuracies in the article which led to the complaint.

 

[TCalnan]

I understand that there were many anonymous complaints but the hearings cannot be set up because of anonymous complaints. According to the National Post Darylle Donley is the complainant against the Star and Connie Harrison complained about an article in the Globe from May 25, 2013.

Whether it is right of them to ask Rob and Doug to submit a complaint I suppose could be up for argument. Still, if someone complained about an article written about me I'd expect to be asked if I would want to complain as well. To hold the hearings based on a third party has to be an unusual case to begin with.

I can't see it as an attack on them, though.

 

[Marko]

It's strange that you're characterizing the OPC's invitation for the Fords to defend themselves as "a weapon against outsiders". Are you suggesting that Anti-Ford citizens (or OPC members) made the complaints anonymously, hoping that the OPC would try to get the Fords in to grill them? Because I really don't think that's the case.

What you're missing is that the Fords need to defend themselves in any way. The papers need to defend themselves here, not the Fords.

For them to issue a disingenuous invitation for the Fords themselves to make a complaint - that is the "weapon" I am referring to.

The OPC is acting upon the complaints made by those who included a name/contact with their complaint (they do not accept anonymous complaints), and those people are Ford supporters. The OPC is following its procedure for handling one of these complaints, which is to hold a hearing where the subject of the complaint is invited to articulate the inaccuracies in the article which led to the complaint.

From the Star's own article:

After receiving 41 public complaints, many of them anonymous, the Ontario Press Council announced Monday it will hold two hearings into stories published in May by the Star and the Globe and Mail.

In a letter dated last Friday, the council invited the mayor to lodge a complaint so that he can make submissions to the Star hearing.

The subject of the complaint would be inaccuracies of the newspapers. It would be up to either the complainant or the newspaper to prove anything one way or the other, otherwise these hearings are nothing more than a means of publicly twisting the arm of any 3rd party into showing up to defend themselves against complaints over which they have no control over.


We're talking now about the Fords, but if this is considered an OK for the OPC to operate, what sort of precedent is this setting? If a member of the media makes a complaint that an article about Adam Giambrone having romantic liasons in his office are incorrect, are they going to invite him in to the hearings to clarify what really happened? If a member of the public complains about an article in which the media reports the cost of the new fighter jets to be incorrect, are they going to invite the DoD to come in and prove what the numbers really are? If a member of the public complains that an article wrongly named someone as present at a crime or whatever, are they going to call the police to come prove that person A, B or C were really there?

Why on earth would they think this 3rd party is going to show up and respond to allegations of their wrongdoing?

Whether it is right of them to ask Rob and Doug to submit a complaint I suppose could be up for argument. Still, if someone complained about an article written about me I'd expect to be asked if I would want to complain as well. To hold the hearings based on a third party has to be an unusual case to begin with.

I can't see it as an attack on them, though.

I believe the hearings and invitation for them to file a complaint is both unusual - as you say - but they are using the 39 anonymous complaints as a sort of "reasoning" that they would extend this invitation in the first place, to put pressure on the Fords by saying "There have been 41 complaints here, so you really need to come clean here". What I am saying is that they have no legal standing to make this request to the Fords and by doing so, it's a really, really inappropriate use of their organization. Remember - it's members of the media that run the OPC, so of course they are trying to get the Fords to allow their dirty laundry to be aired publicly.

 

[TCalnan]

I'm still not sure I'm getting the point, Marko.

If a member of the media makes a complaint that an article about Adam Giambrone having romantic liasons in his office are incorrect, are they going to invite him in to the hearings to clarify what really happened?

Of course. Right? I mean, the guy doesn't have to show up, but to NOT invite him would be pretty irresponsible.

The newspapers are on 'trial' here and to not invite the subject of the articles would be ridiculous.

 

[TCalnan]

I believe the hearings and invitation for them to file a complaint is both unusual - as you say - but they are using the 39 anonymous complaints as a sort of "reasoning" that they would extend this invitation in the first place, to put pressure on the Fords by saying "There have been 41 complaints here, so you really need to come clean here". What I am saying is that they have no legal standing to make this request to the Fords and by doing so, it's a really, really inappropriate use of their organization. Remember - it's members of the media that run the OPC, so of course they are trying to get the Fords to allow their dirty laundry to be aired publicly.

I think the anonymous complaints were mentioned as a point of interest. The reason the hearings were set up was because two people submitted a formal complaint for hearings. I don't think it'd be legal or illegal to make any request of the Fords - I think it'd be irresponsible not to, though. The Fords won't be asked to go on trial here - it's not a court of law. They'll be asked to offer proof that the Star and the Globe were irresponsible in their reporting. The truth of the accusations is not part of the process - they've come out and said that already.

There's certainly nothing illegal going on here.

I didn't mean that the invitation to file a complaint is unusual, by the way. I meant that someone other than the subject(s) of the article making the complaint is unusual.

 

[guitarchitect]

What you're missing is that the Fords need to defend themselves in any way. The papers need to defend themselves here, not the Fords.

For them to issue a disingenuous invitation for the Fords themselves to make a complaint - that is the "weapon" I am referring to.

I went ahead and re-read what's actually happening, because I don't think anyone seems to have an accurate picture of the nature of these hearings.

Here's what the Globe says about how the OPC is handling the complaint, regarding Doug Ford

The council will consider whether The Globe’s article dealt with a matter in the public interest, whether adequate efforts were made to verify allegations, whether Doug Ford was given adequate time to respond, whether his response was included, and whether it was appropriate to include references to other members of the Ford family.

They aren't fact-checking as you have claimed. What they are dealing with is whether or not "the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star have “engaged in irresponsibly, unethical investigative reporting” in coverage of the Ford family."

Regarding the Star article:

The council will review whether the Star article dealt with a matter in the public interest, whether adequate efforts were made to verify allegations, whether Rob Ford was given adequate time to respond, whether his response was included.

Both Fords were invited to submit complaints. That's it. If they choose to make a complaint, they would then participate in the hearing... otherwise it will probably just be the OPC, the two newspapers, and the two people who made the complaints. They aren't demanding that they come clean - just inviting them to submit a complaint. Given how publicly they Fords have denounced the investigative reporting of both papers, and journalists in general, it seems appropriate that the OPC is giving them a final shot to formally make an official complaint before they finalize the participants in the hearing. It seems like exactly the kind of thing the Fords would want to do, doesn't it?

 

[tariqata]

I believe the hearings and invitation for them to file a complaint is both unusual - as you say - but they are using the 39 anonymous complaints as a sort of "reasoning" that they would extend this invitation in the first place, to put pressure on the Fords by saying "There have been 41 complaints here, so you really need to come clean here". What I am saying is that they have no legal standing to make this request to the Fords and by doing so, it's a really, really inappropriate use of their organization. Remember - it's members of the media that run the OPC, so of course they are trying to get the Fords to allow their dirty laundry to be aired publicly.

This isn't how I understand the letters sent to the Fords by the OPC, although I do think the Star has been a bit disingenuous in their characterization of this as an oportunity for the Fords to refute the allegations. The Star article states that the OPC letters invite the Fords to submit their own complaints, which would then give them standing to express their views on how the Star and the Globe did not meet the standards of good reporting in articles about them. That's quite different than asking the Fords to demonstrate that the articles were not true, and as others have already said, it seems entirely reasonable to offer the Fords an opportunity to speak to the issue of how and why they feel that reporting about them has been unfair.

 

[nfitz]

On what planet does it make sense for the Fords (or anyone, really) to allow themselves to be questioned on legal matters by a non-legal entity that is specifically seeking to expose the information gained through these hearings?

On the planet where Doug Ford didn't spend his teens and 20's dealing lots of soft drugs, and where Rob Ford wasn't caught on video smoking crack.

As we know that Rob Ford does smoke crack, and Doug Ford was a drug dealer way back, it's unlikely that they'll want to say anything. However if neither party has any complain about the story, then the hearing won't happen.

 

[Bebop17]

Not sure what you're getting at. My point was - if the Crown is "considering laying charges", then they are most likely building a case. If a person is assaulted, they either press charges or they don't... My understanding is that the Crown wouldn't, say, press charges if someone was allegedly assaulted by somebody - it's up to the victim to do that. In a case of laws being broken by drugs being dealt or what have you (where there isn't a victim in the traditional sense, but laws are being broken), the Crown builds a case and then lays charges.

Now maybe I'm completely wrong about this - someone with a better understanding of the law can clarify.

Someone's already come along to explain that the Crown lays charges in almost all cases where criminal charges are laid. I just want to add I have known too many people who have been assaulted - specifically, women who have been sexually assaulted - who have twisted in the wind while the police have decided whether to investigate and the Crown has decided whether to lay charges.