DeNiro Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Given that multiple reporters from different, independent organizations say they have seen the same thing, it would be extremely difficult to sue for libel. As for the crowdsourced funds, Gawker said from the start that, should the deal fall through, the money would go to a charity. So there's really no issue there. And with regards to the existence of the video, in my mind there's no doubt that it's real. Reporters from completely unrelated news organizations don't just spontaneously decide to collaborate on completely fabricated stories. Even if you think that the Star is so anti-Ford that they would be willing to fabricate this (which is completely ridiculous, in my opinion) that doesn't explain why Gawker, which previously had no interest in Ford whatsoever, would participate. If funds are raised with the goal of purchasing a video, and then it turns out there never was actually a video, that would be fraud. Asuming it could be proven that the Gawker and the Star fabricated the story to raise money for charity, and/or to assisinate Ford's character. The Star has already proven their hate for Ford, so it wouldn't be hard to prove malice there. And the Gawker could just be taking advatage of free publicity, or even fulfilling their own agenda which might have been to raise money for this charity. Either way, if the video doesn't surface, something is fishy. No one's dumb enough to back out on a deal for $200,000. They would be rushing to deliver the tape as soon as the money was in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Given that multiple reporters from different, independent organizations say they have seen the same thing, it would be extremely difficult to sue for libel. The problem here is that only 3 reporters from 2 agencies have claimed to watch this video, and are reporting this as original fact - Gawker Media, and the Toronto Star. All other coverage of the Rob Ford story is based off the Gawker/Toronto Star reports. I am unsure whether it is difficult or not to sue for libel - that's for a lawyer to answer. What I do know, however, is that the story originated from the 2 aforementioned sources, and thus that is where the brunt of the blame should lay if this is a fabricated story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 If funds are raised with the goal of purchasing a video, and then it turns out there never was actually a video, that would be fraud. Asuming it could be proven that the Gawker and the Star fabricated the story to raise money for charity, and/or to assisinate Ford's character. The Star has already proven their hate for Ford, so it wouldn't be hard to prove malice there. And the Gawker could just be taking advatage of free publicity, or even fulfilling their own agenda which might have been to raise money for this charity. Either way, if the video doesn't surface, something is fishy. No one's dumb enough to back out on a deal for $200,000. They would be rushing to deliver the tape as soon as the money was in place. This isn't how the media works. The idea that Gawker, a for-profit organization, would enact this byzantine plot simply to raise money for a foreign based charity is ludicrous. And just because a newspaper's editorial board disagrees with a politician's political ideology, it in no ways follow that they would launch an over-the-top complicated scheme to fabricate a drug scandal. Again, that is just not how the media works. And while I think the video will probably surface, there's a pretty easy explanation of it doesn't: someone who wanted it buried bought it. This is really a classic example of Occam's Razor in action: multiple, independent people say that a certain video exists, and that the video contains extremely damaging information for a specific politician. In the wake of the news, several key staffers of the politician resign. Given those facts, by far the simplest explanation is that the video exists. Any other explanation involves fanciful details and nonsensical motivations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 The problem here is that only 3 reporters from 2 agencies have claimed to watch this video, and are reporting this as original fact - Gawker Media, and the Toronto Star. All other coverage of the Rob Ford story is based off the Gawker/Toronto Star reports. I am uncure whether it is difficult or not to sue for libel - that's for a lawyer to answer. What I do know, however, is that the story originated from the 2 aforementioned sources, and thus that is where the brunt of the blame should lay if this is a fabricated story. Well, Gawker and the Toronto Star have no connection whatsoever. As far as I'm aware, two completely independent media outlets have never collaborated to intentionally fabricate a huge scandal about a politician. If it has happened, it is exceedingly rare, to say the least. So based on that it's pretty likely the video exists, or that it did at one point. As for libel, Ford would have to show that, "on the balance of probabilities" (i.e., more likely than not), that The Star and Gawker intentionally fabricated the story. That would be very hard to prove. Let's assume they did intentionally collaborate to frame Ford (which I think is a completely ridiculous notion, but for the sake of the exercise we'll assume it's true.) Even if they did, unless they emailed each other something to the effect of "hey guys, do you want to pretend that we saw a video of Rob Ford smoking crack, lol" I don't see how you show they're lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Well, Gawker and the Toronto Star have no connection whatsoever. As far as I'm aware, two completely independent media outlets have never collaborated to intentionally fabricate a huge scandal about a politician. If it has happened, it is exceedingly rare, to say the least. So based on that it's pretty likely the video exists, or that it did at one point. As for libel, Ford would have to show that, "on the balance of probabilities" (i.e., more likely than not), that The Star and Gawker intentionally fabricated the story. That would be very hard to prove. Let's assume they did intentionally collaborate to frame Ford (which I think is a completely ridiculous notion, but for the sake of the exercise we'll assume it's true.) Even if they did, unless they emailed each other something to the effect of "hey guys, do you want to pretend that we saw a video of Rob Ford smoking crack, lol" I don't see how you show they're lying. Couldn't Ford just go after the entities in separate lawsuits? That way, the claimant doesn't have to show that the 2 media companies conspired to ruin Ford's reputation, but instead made up a fake story within their own organization designed to defame Ford's name? Also, tweets between members of the Toronto Star editorial team and Gawker Media team show that there's already animosity over who gets original reporting credits. They're not exactly 100% allies in the Ford fiasco, and thus it's probably easier to sue them separately than try to prove that they were working together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Couldn't Ford just go after the entities in separate lawsuits? That way, the claimant doesn't have to show that the 2 media companies conspired to ruin Ford's reputation, but instead made up a fake story within their own organization designed to defame Ford's name? Also, tweets between members of the Toronto Star editorial team and Gawker Media team show that there's already animosity over who gets original reporting credits. They're not exactly 100% allies in the Ford fiasco, and thus it's probably easier to sue them separately than try to prove that they were working together. Yes, he would probably sue only the Toronto Star, since they're in Canada. However, the fact that another media organization reported basically the exact same information would make it basically impossible to show that they were intentionally lying. The only way to do so would be to show collaboration, which, as you point out, almost certainly didn't happen. Of course, it's probably a moot point, since the video exists. Here's a new Toronto Star article detailing conversations between high level Ford staffers about the location of the video. Those conversations only happen if the video actually exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Gawker hit their $200k goal today. The Circus is coming to town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 A former Ford staffer told the National Post that he has received a tip on the whereabouts of the video the man photographed with Ford, allegedly from the 'crack video' has been fatally shot. person who supposedly has the alleged video has gone missing. HMMMM!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MANGO Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 A former Ford staffer told the National Post that he has received a tip on the whereabouts of the video the man photographed with Ford, allegedly from the 'crack video' has been fatally shot. person who supposedly has the alleged video has gone missing. HMMMM!! just keeps getting better an better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrainWetzky Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Yeah baby, Godfather IV in the making! So what did I miss? This was the last time I read about the case. They are still in the stalemate? And most importantly will Philip Seymour Hoffman play Ford in the movie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 You did not miss much besides more staffers resigning. Still no video. So all we have is some reporters seeing a video of Rob Ford smoking crack. So with no 3rd party verification, this is news? What kind of reporting is this where a story can be made up soley on reporters seeing something on video. If the reporters saw a video of a Saquatch, would they run a headline on the news, "The Sasqautch Lives!, it is Real". Or how about a video of Obama smoking crack? Yes, "Obama smokes Crack !" blares the headline on the Toronto Star. Without independent verification there is no story here. The reporters should be ashamed of themselves for sloppy reporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Where's Chris Farley when you need him most! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 You did not miss much besides more staffers resigning. Still no video. So all we have is some reporters seeing a video of Rob Ford smoking crack. So with no 3rd party verification, this is news? What kind of reporting is this where a story can be made up soley on reporters seeing something on video. If the reporters saw a video of a Saquatch, would they run a headline on the news, "The Sasqautch Lives!, it is Real". Or how about a video of Obama smoking crack? Yes, "Obama smokes Crack !" blares the headline on the Toronto Star. Without independent verification there is no story here. The reporters should be ashamed of themselves for sloppy reporting. Maybe you haven't noticed the firings, resignations, shootings and police investigations. Not to mention the leaked conversations between Ford staffers about the video. There is a very big story here, and handwaving won't make it go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I have to say the story about Rob Ford smoking crack is probably is true. For one reason; he is not suing the Toronto Star. People who are libelled (or think they are libelled) will immediately sue newspaper/radio/tv for defamation of character. Remember John Furlong? Head of 2010 Olympics? He sued the Georgia Strait almost immediately for defamation. Rob Ford did nothing for 1 week. Said nothing. Gulty by silence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I have to say the story about Rob Ford smoking crack is probably is true. For one reason; he is not suing the Toronto Star. People who are libelled (or think they are libelled) will immediately sue newspaper/radio/tv for defamation of character. Remember John Furlong? Head of 2010 Olympics? He sued the Georgia Strait almost immediately for defamation. Rob Ford did nothing for 1 week. Said nothing. Gulty by silence. To be fair, there are many reasons that indicate the story may be true before one arrives at the "why didn't he sue?" question. Photos with gang shooting victims and constituents fingering the camera, the previous lying behavior going back to before he was mayor, his inebriated stunt on camera, and I haven't gotten to the "he said, she said" of the family drugs or the DUI in Florida. Two more bailed the sinking Ford ship: 'Things are great,' Mayor Rob Ford says as 2 more staffers leave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
î мцšт вяздк чфµ Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 i he gets fired i hope the canucks make him the new coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosalie52 Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 I love bad boys, like Rob Ford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amish Rake Fighter Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 "...And that's why I say he's gonna be the greatest mayor this city has ever, ever seen, as far as I'm concerned! And put that in your pipe, you left-wing kooks...." Don Cherry speaking at Rob Ford's inauguration, December 7, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosalie52 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 What does Mr.McKay have to say about this: "Drugs are bad, mmm'kay! (spelling?)" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grapefruits Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Well this is a shocker... Gawker says alleged Rob Ford drug video might be 'gone' U.S. website Gawker says an alleged drug video of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford may be "gone," and nearly $200,000 raised to buy the video could go to charity. CTVNews.ca Staff, June 4, 2013 9:24:00 PM U.S. website Gawker says an alleged drug video of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford may be "gone," and nearly $200,000 raised to buy the video could go to charity. Gawker editor John Cook and two Toronto Star journalists reported they had seen the video, in which Ford appears to smoke a crack pipe, but CTV has not independently verified its existence. The mayor has denied the video exists and says he does not smoke crack cocaine. In a post on Gawker's website Tuesday, Cook wrote that an intermediary spoke to the purported seller of the video, who said it was "gone." Gawker had crowdsourced a total of $201,254 minus fees to buy the video. "If this doesn't happen soon, we will -- as we initially promised when we launched the campaign -- select a Canadian nonprofit that addresses substance abuse issues to receive the money," he wrote Tuesday. Ford has faced a constant barrage of media attention since Gawker and the Toronto Star first reported on the alleged video in mid-May. Since then, Ford's chief of staff Mark Towhey has resigned, along with several other staff members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.