dforthandbview
Senior Member
The Star has found the house in the infamous Ford photo. The story about it will be online and in tomorrow's issue.
The Star has found the house in the infamous Ford photo. The story about it will be online and in tomorrow's issue.
The Star has found the house in the infamous Ford photo. The story about it will be online and in tomorrow's issue.
But in the end, what's the point? Those who aren't believing this will only dig their heels in deeper and say that the Star is trying to keep their story relevant. In the end, it still boils down to getting the video out there.
Nah, Malvern2 and his ilk will continue to spit out rhetoric. Look at how he always ignores reponses.
Actually, I believe one reason why Malvern2 ignores responses is that, like CN Tower, he's a serial placer-of-opponents-on-ignore-lists. So he's blurting in an echo chamber of his own creation...
But in the end, what's the point? Those who aren't believing this will only dig their heels in deeper and say that the Star is trying to keep their story relevant. In the end, it still boils down to getting the video out there.
Investigative journalism is incremental. You have to be in a position to get tips, work your contacts, double source them, run them past the editors and the lawyers., etc. Watergate didn't happen overnight. It took Woodstein MONTHS to nail their story.
My guess is that is what the Star was doing, getting a story with no loose ends, aside from negotiating for the video, when Gawker stumbled into this. Gawker's story would have made headlines here even if the Star wasn't on the case. The press pack would have been all over Ford, although perhaps not so fiercely and persistently. But the story would not have been easily buried.
Once Gawker published their version, then the Star had to pre-empt the other papers. What's more, it had *SEEN* the video and had done so with as much due diligence as possible under the circumstances. For those who question why they didn't make videos of the video or whatnot, read the accounts by the reporters. Their sources made them leave their gear, phones and stuff behind in their car.
I am willing to bet, like I posted last night (but you all ignored), that the video will surface in Alberta and this whole thingwill go kabam by the weekend.
Investigative journalism is incremental. You have to be in a position to get tips, work your contacts, double source them, run them past the editors and the lawyers., etc. Watergate didn't happen overnight. It took Woodstein MONTHS to nail their story.
My guess is that is what the Star was doing, getting a story with no loose ends, aside from negotiating for the video, when Gawker stumbled into this. Gawker's story would have made headlines here even if the Star wasn't on the case. The press pack would have been all over Ford, although perhaps not so fiercely and persistently. But the story would not have been easily buried.
Once Gawker published their version, then the Star had to pre-empt the other papers. What's more, it had *SEEN* the video and had done so with as much due diligence as possible under the circumstances. For those who question why they didn't make videos of the video or whatnot, read the accounts by the reporters. Their sources made them leave their gear, phones and stuff behind in their car.
I am willing to bet, like I posted last night (but you all ignored), that the video will surface in Alberta and this whole thingwill go kabam by the weekend.
As far as The Star goes, in my opinion that is reckless and irresponsible journalism and erodes any credibility they have left in this city, regardless of whether reporting it is legal or not. Tabloid journalism at its finest. No proof, no witnesses, no evidence. Just reporting what they 'saw' or rather what they wanted to see.
This nonsense about the video "surfacing" has a very 1970's caper ring to it and completely ignores the fact that we are in the digital age where the video could be uploaded to Youtube for the whole world to see by the owner's sister while he's using the bathroom.