We have seen the publishers of the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail make reporters responsible for the separate stories about Toronto's Mayor and his brother.
Obviously the veteran publications have undergone changes in policy about what they require iin the way of attribution before they publish a story. But are we also to believe the decision about which stories are published and where ,by journalists. Why should that be an acceptable account ?
It's not going down too well.
Councillor Doug Holyday said he believes Star reporter Doolittle has seen a video. He did not say he
believes the video is authentic.
That led the bemused reporter to claim the Councillor was contradicting the Mayor's statement,there is no video of him smoking crack in a glass pipe in the company of a couple of Somali drug dealers.
When I was first elected , a regular surprise was how often people in a place together, could listen to a presentation and hear something different. It still happens.
Last week we watched Mayor Ford negotiate his way through the crush and refuse to answer questions about the video Tured out he received legal advice to say as little as possible,.
That made sense.
Then we watched political pessure that he should address the issue of the video.
So he did. Did anything change or improve>? . I don't think so.
Then the Globe got into the act with the story about Councillor Doug Ford, the Mayor's brother
New fuel to the fire.
The publisher of the blog Gawker is currently being interviewed on T.V. He's being asked to vouch for the existence of the video. There's nothing persuasive about his responseHe's hoping the video will surface and there might be extra copies around.
He has collected over $200,000 to pay for the video.
I see no reason at all to believe his story. Who is he? What's his background? Whis vouches for his integrity?
In the meantime , the Duffy- Wright story in Ottawa continues at a different pace in a different environment. The RCMP i are involved. That seems about right.
It should result in a different outcome.
Posts
5 comments:
Now both publishers have made statements to justify their decisions in printing the various accusations. It isn't working. I particularly like the Star saying that it would be unethical to purchase that video for such a sum. Probably his paper has taken a hit of more than that through loss of advertising & subscribers. THAT is why he is now trying to make nice.
Aurora should be pleased that we actually have a good reporter in Brock Weir. Can you imagine if we were limited to the Star's sister paper, the Banner? I don't agree with everything in the Auroran but we are damn lucky to have it.
This little story was on an American ministries website. It had appeared as a letter to the editor in today's Globe and Mail and I was curious as to its origin. Still not too sure about that.
"Post turtle" is a political name some people are called and has been used by Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
It derives from a joke.
An old tough Texas rancher is talking politics with a young man from the city. The old man compares a politician to a "post turtle." The young man doesn't understand and asks what a post turtle is. The old rancher replies, "When you are driving down a country road and you see a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle. You know he didn't get up there by himself. He doesn't belong there. He can't get anything done while he is up there; you just want to help the poor, dumb thing down."
The "post turtle" appellation can be applied to any seeker of high office who is attempting to rise above his/her native abilities and thus would be out of place.
QUICK NOW:
Can you name a half dozen post turtles recently in the news?
Poor old Peter Penashau up in Labrador ! I'm pretty sure that someone must have promised him a seat in the Senate when he ran in that byelection. Ain't happening any time soon unless Harper is suicidal.
A good reporter avoids becoming part of the story. Mistakes have been made all the way up the line.
Post a Comment