News   Jul 18, 2024
Cladding, First Glazing Installed as the Foster-Designed 50 Scollard Rises
 889     2 
News   Jul 18, 2024
Affordable Rental Housing for Low-Income Seniors Planned on The Queensway
 792     0 
News   Jul 18, 2024
News Roundup for July 18, 2024
 583     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
CowboyLogic:

Actually I am debating whether you might be having a double standard on insistence of ethical behaviour - in other words, hypocrisy - as referenced:

You can't seem to tolerate a paper doing supposedly unethical acts and yet one has nothing to say about the chief magistrate of the city running a campaign and governing with these tactics and standards?
Click to expand...

Those who claims others are unethical (i.e. supposedly attempting to influence the outcome of election) and at the same time willingly support a chief magistrate who behaves unethically (manipulating slate of electon candidates and public opinion) should rightly be questioned as to whether they have any standing in discussing said topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

AoD
 
Last edited:
Parker said:
thank you. It always irritates me when people believe "freedom of speech" mean freedom from criticism and/or free access to the platform of their choice. Yes, they may speak freely, but no one is obligated to provide or sponsor a platform from which they may speak.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my intent at all. I love a good debate, but when previous posters tell the Rob Ford fans to go elsewhere to post, what's the point? Sorry if I irritated you without making myself clear.
 
CowboyLogic said:
What about them?

Rather then actually address any of the issues I raised, you're trying to instead turn the focus onto Ford. Well, regardless of whether Ford has been ethical or not, the Star hasn't been ethical in their reporting.

Now, if you want to debate the separate issue of whether Ford is ethical, that's one thing. But right now, we're discussing whether the Star has lost credibility and has been unethical in their conduct. Changing the focus onto Ford doesn't address these issues.
Click to expand...
Read the title of this thread. "Mayor Rob Ford's Toronto". The ethics, behaviour and effectiveness of the Mayor of this city is what this thread is about. This is what should concern citizens. In attempting to make the debate about the credibility of a newspaper, as you do here, and as Mayor Ford and his brother and many of their supporters attempt to do, you are the one turning the focus. If a person doesn't like the reporting slant of a newspaper they can choose not to purchase or read it. The Star certainly isn't the least credible or laziest newspaper in the city, and beyond newspapers there are several television and radio stations which report news so poorly that they contribute to the dumbing of the culture that elected this boob.
 
CowboyLogic said:
the KFC video was TMZ-style tabloid-journalism
Click to expand...

As was pointed out earlier, the KFC video was in the context of his very-well-publicized public campaign to lose weight, which was clearly a political event. In that light it was appropriate journalism, an indication that Ford was either being an intentional hypocrite, or incapable of taking the challenge seriously.
 
CowboyLogic said:
What about them?

Rather then actually address any of the issues I raised, you're trying to instead turn the focus onto Ford. Well, regardless of whether Ford has been ethical or not, the Star hasn't been ethical in their reporting.

Now, if you want to debate the separate issue of whether Ford is ethical, that's one thing. But right now, we're discussing whether the Star has lost credibility and has been unethical in their conduct. Changing the focus onto Ford doesn't address these issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
Click to expand...

I see your point, but really...who cares whether the Star is ethical or not? The Star could be the left hand of Satan, and that still wouldn't make Ford a good mayor (which is the point of this thread).

I guess it may matter to those people who, for some reason, are more likely to vote for Ford because they don't like how the Star reports on him...but if that's someone's reason for voting a certain way, there's really no reasoning with them anyway.

The whole debate seems a bit Wizard of Oz-esque to me..."pay no attention to the faults of the mayor...instead, look over there! The Star is being a jerk!"
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
CowboyLogic:

Actually I am debating whether you might be having a double standard on insistence of ethical behaviour - in other words, hypocrisy - as referenced:

Those who claims others are unethical (i.e. supposedly attempting to influence the outcome of election) and at the same time willingly support a chief magistrate who behaves unethically (manipulating slate of electon candidates and public opinion) should rightly be questioned as to whether they have any standing in discussing said topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
Click to expand...

You're still employing the same fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi.

I was discussing how the Star's conduct is unethical. You responded by saying that Ford is unethical and, now, that I'm hypocritical. Even if these things are true, you're changing the subject. They have no relevance as to whether or not the Star is ethical.

Nor am I being hypocritical in the slightest. I said that the Star's conduct has been unethical and that they've lost credibility in the eyes of many Torontonians. If I support an unethical (from your POV) individual, that doesn't contradict anything I've said. I never said people shouldn't support the Star because they're unethical (in fact, its the newspaper I read the most), I simply said they are unethical.

typezed said:
Read the title of this thread. "Mayor Rob Ford's Toronto". The ethics, behaviour and effectiveness of the Mayor of this city is what this thread is about. This is what should concern citizens. In attempting to make the debate about the credibility of a newspaper, as you do here, and as Mayor Ford and his brother and many of their supporters attempt to do, you are the one turning the focus. If a person doesn't like the reporting slant of a newspaper they can choose not to purchase or read it. The Star certainly isn't the least credible or laziest newspaper in the city, and beyond newspapers there are several television and radio stations which report news so poorly that they contribute to the dumbing of the culture that elected this boob.
Click to expand...

I'm not attempting to turn the focus here in the slightest. The topic of the Star's role in the bungling of the crack scandal came up from someone anti-Ford and I added in my own two cents.

Furthermore, this topic is directly pertinent to Ford, the crack scandal and Toronto. Are you really advocating that people shouldn't discuss any issue that is tangentially related to Ford?

This thread is called "Mayor Rob Ford's Toronto," not "Mayor Rob Ford's ethics, behavior and effectiveness." The title of this thread indicates discussion of all events and topics related to Toronto under Ford. The biggest daily's coverage of the mayor certainly falls under that.
 
ColinZeal said:
So, which one is it?
Click to expand...

What I said in response to you was this: The KFC video was certainly the low-point, but there have been other instances. Following the Mayor to his cottage in Muskoka, for one.

Its clear that, in that context, I wasn't referring to a video but rather the Star's actions. The implication was that following the Mayor to his cottage is something TMZ would do. I guess you would be technically correct to say that I didn't bring up any additional examples of a TMZ-style video, but trying to make it sound like I said there was a video of the Mayor's cottage is just disingenuous.

Tulse:

As was pointed out earlier, the KFC video was in the context of his very-well-publicized public campaign to lose weight, which was clearly a political event. In that light it was appropriate journalism, an indication that Ford was either being an intentional hypocrite, or incapable of taking the challenge seriously.
Click to expand...

Criticism over the public campaign was warranted as were updates on the results, but a video of people laughing at the Mayor as he buys KFC isn't appropriate journalism. That's not news - Ford had already flat-lined with the weight-loss challenge. Showing him buying KFC doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. In fact, it doesn't tell us anything at all. It could have been for his family, he could have been having his one weekly or monthly treat, he could have been giving up. The public weigh-in was news, but the Mayor buying KFC on his personal time isn't.
 
Last edited:
When the Mayor gets involved in a public weight-loss campaign, buying KFC is news. It also speaks to his habitual lack of commitment and follow-through.
 
Hank said:
I see your point, but really...who cares whether the Star is ethical or not? The Star could be the left hand of Satan, and that still wouldn't make Ford a good mayor (which is the point of this thread).
Click to expand...

I'm going to work in the next thirty minutes, so this will be my last post clogging up this thread for the day.

The discussion has gotten a bit out of hand and away from my original post. I was originally responding to someone who said the Star bungled the crack scandal. My point was that they have lost a lot of credibility in many Torontonian's eyes due to their past conduct and that the crack allegations would have had a much greater impact if people actually still trusted the Star. My point was essentially that, because of how the Star has behaved, something which probably could have ended Ford's career has barely fazed him.

I do support Ford and hence, the newspaper's ethics is a concern to me, but my post here was more about how the Star only has themselves to blame for half the city refusing to believe the crack allegations.
 
CowboyLogic said:
I guess you would be technically correct to say that I didn't bring up any additional examples of a TMZ-style video, but trying to make it sound like I said there was a video of the Mayor's cottage is just disingenuous.
Click to expand...


I sincerely thought you were referring to them publishing a video about it, exactly because that's the point I brought - people like you say there are so many examples of The Star publishing this sort of thing and never provide anything other than the only example there is.

Feel free to prove yourself correct on your claim that "they've published articles which mock him for his weight, TMZ-style videos of the Mayor in his personal life (like that KFC video)" by providing at least another video (as videos is in the plural form, it must mean at least more than one).
 
I have to ask myself, what is the point of Rob Ford? Why does this man want to be in office? In three years, this man has accomplished just about nothing. He can't deliver on any of his promises. There is not, and wasn't any "gravy" to be cut, as shown by Ford's own reports. He's set back transit in Toronto by years. He's caused controversy after controversy. I have no idea why this man would want to run for office again. If he had integrity, he would step aside and allow someone who is competent to take his position. Just about anybody would be better suited than Ford for delivering the "Ford agenda".
 
Quote Originally Posted by typezed View Post
Read the title of this thread. "Mayor Rob Ford's Toronto". The ethics, behaviour and effectiveness of the Mayor of this city is what this thread is about.
Click to expand...
Actually to get all pissy about it, if that were the intent in starting the thread the title should have been "Toronto's Mayor, Rob Ford".

But it is "Mayor Rob Ford's Toronto" and as such seems to invite conversation about the City, not the Mayor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top