Re: BY By Tommy boy Ford kicked out!!
Can the toronto star not be taken to court over this? I am sure there is some charge some lawyer can come up with. Something like slandering one's image? Or the citys image?
Media has stopped reporting reality and has gotten into the business of creating reality. They no longer report the news they make the news. I mean this crack smoking image can be a doctored image done by any one with mediocre photoshop skills.
Did the media not create the "reality" of saddam husein and WMD's? And look at the cost and result of that.
That was the US government actually. It's funny you should use that example because the Star was one of the only major media outlets to try and find fault with the official line regarding WMDs. I remember reading this article that debunked the notion of nuclear capability in Iraq;
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar...nded+in+'91+Played+part+in+plan+to+build+bomb
I challenge you to find anything at all in the Sun that didn't tow the official line of WMDs in Iraq.
The Star and anyone else on this crusade of destroying Ford, should be held responsible for their actions unless proof is shown. Otherwise it just sets a bad precedence. There are media conglomerates around the world watching this rob ford crack fiasco and learning how to improve on the recipe.
We live in a world controlled by media now. Something goes on TV and all the drones are like "DAMN it must be true".
This is scary crap man. All the kids growing up, the facetube generation, they are just going to be controlled by media as they become judge jury and executioner.
You don't understand journalism. The major outlets live and die on their credibility, and while I would agree that the Star has cried wolf on the subject of Ford in some instances when the 'wolf' was just a cub, or a stuffed wolf, or many things other than a genuine threat to us, they have technically always been correct. Just because they have a hate-on for Ford doesn't automatically make their information false, as the Ford camp seems to want people to believe. BTW is was Gawker that broke the story first.
Anyways the world has been shaped by public opinion for centuries now, it's not a new thing and the media have always played a huge role in that. The prevalence of social media and cameras everywhere is actually a huge benefit to the publishing of accurate and reliable information. Look at the Ragu incident. The CIA even uses twitter as a source of information after filtering out the unreliable contributors based on cross-checking with known info, and based on the self-policing of incorrect info that takes place between different twitter accounts. Now you have perspectives from every angle and the public gets to choose the most reasonable explanation based on the preponderance of evidence and the reliability of sources.
In this case, I believe the video exists based on several sources of information;
- An addictions specialist I know assessed him as being addicted to oxycontin based on his behaviour and habits, well before the word of the video came out.
-
knowledge (forum member) said well before the video came out that he had knowledge of his drug use.
- The video was shown twice to two separate media outlets, who both reported seeing the exact same thing. Watch this and tell me with a straight face that the two outlets were working together:
http://youtu.be/AmElwoVY0WU
- While the Star may have a vendetta against him, they have never lied before.
- A drug habit fits with his history of spouse abuse, violence against strangers, angry outbursts, inappropriate sexual advances, being asked to leave an event due to apparent intoxication.
- Rob didn't deny the video or any drug habit until a week after it was reported.
I also believe the video is real, for many of the same reasons. This is all quite a separate problem from his total incompetence as mayor, BTW.
What are your reasons for believing the video is fake, or nonexistent?
