Rob Ford's Toronto

[W. K. Lis]

Ford's new staff are really putting him out in front. He's been out in the community at fundraisers and events, talking city matters, openly discussing and supporting "causes close to his heart"... quite a turnaround from just one week ago.



Think about it, it's a compromised structure.... (I couldn't resist that one!)

"Causes close to his heart"?

I guess he was not at Eglinton Avenue West and Black Creek Drive for the launch of the two tunnel boring machines excavating underneath Eglinton Avenue. See this link. The Crosstown LRT would not be close to his heart.

 

[dforthandbview]

The Star has found the house in the infamous Ford photo. The story about it will be online and in tomorrow's issue.

 

[guitarchitect]

The Star has found the house in the infamous Ford photo. The story about it will be online and in tomorrow's issue.

Amazing! I was talking to a friend about this (we're architects after all), essentially saying "Why don't they just find the house in the photo, I'm sure it would go some ways towards showing that Ford wasn't just out and about but he was somewhere quite intentionally... Smith's house or whatever... and the 'I take pictures with everyone' excuse will be full of new holes". We agreed that the only people that could really do that are Ford, or one of the guys in the photo or people that he knew...

I really hope it pans out the way I thought it might. Watch it be one of the houses right around the towers at 320 Dixon...

 

[christiesplits]

The Star has found the house in the infamous Ford photo. The story about it will be online and in tomorrow's issue.

Not really the "juicy" update I was hoping for but it'll do. I'm hoping its in a relatively secluded, out of the way neighbourhood where his presence would be very unusual for a mayor. As if hanging out with Somali gang members and a recent murder victim isn't telling enough.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

Meanwhile, a little ballad for all you fellas... (YouTube)

Torn Between Two Brothers

 

[jje1000]

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.

 

[LowPolygon]

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.

a death by a thousand cuts is still a death.

 

[adma]

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...

 

[ThinkRicky]

There are a lot of people that are giving Ford the benefit of the doubt because the extent to which they follow any news story (particularly in politics) is merely "Well I had the TV on in the background while I was doing something else." Just today I was talking to a friend of mine that works downtown but lives out in the GTA with me, and she had no idea about the Sun reporting why Ford's chief of staff "left" or the other suspicious stuff that's gone down. I showed her the photo and now she knows something's up; learning more about where it was taken can only help.

 

[lovarkitec]

yes, what you say is right but i don't know any gay men or lesbians who refer to themselves as 'homosexuals'... it's a clinical term that most of us stopped using many years ago. as a gay man, i refer to myself as 'gay', not homosexual.

 

[downradio]

Random thought: regardless of whether Rob Ford smoked crack or didn't (he did), he has now essentially become CRACK himself. I can't get enough of him and especially of this story. I suspect many of you are going through the same thing. When this video does surface and Humpty Dumpty finally takes the great fall he's long overdue for, we may well have to check into rehab. Don't worry though, Rob Ford will likely be there too.

 

[CN Tower]

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...

Please don't lump me in with Malvern2. He and I do not share opinions.

I am simply seeking the truth behind the incident in The Star's/Gawker's allegations. How that truth will come about is certainly befuddling with all the bias and agendas circulating out there these days. Ultimately I can't condone a mayor who actively engages in crack cocaine/heroin use. That's well past where I draw the line of support and I suspect others who support his agenda might share my sentiments as well.

Notwithstanding, even if he's proven to have been a user I will likely still support him in the next election if his main rival is Olivia Chow. I do not like her or her politics one bit.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

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.

 

[CN Tower]

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.

I will gladly take that bet. What are we wagering?

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.

 

[guitarchitect]

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.

The timeline of the story is very well known. The Star wasn't going to pay for the video so the dealers were shopping it around (even to the Sun) - eventually Gawker got the call and started mining their contacts at different organizations including CNN, and CNN was the one who alerted the Fords to say "Hey, is this thing real?" That's when Gawker pulled the trigger and The Star had to follow suit, much sooner than they had hoped.

Your post wasn't ignored - the date on the story was May 30 and we have already heard about it. In the article (from this week?) that the Sun posted, the lawyer stated that while there's a hold-up in acquiring evidence, he also isn't aware of any connection between the case and the video. But with lawyer-client privileges, that's exactly what you'd expect to hear from the lawyer... in any event, other posts were made (and discussions happened) now that all of the media outlets have reported on the potential link, and the idea that it may actually be the RCMP that may have the video.