[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[garbon]

but it seems like all along the star had more then enough back up to run the story, which has been shown to be true in the conference today.

I don't see that. Seems more likely they got lucky.

[Josephus]

Look. The Star did nothing wrong. Never. Find a journalism school chairperson, or newspaper editor,  who says anything contrary.

Reporters report on what they see.

Most newspaper, (and other media) articles are based on that. If you see an interivew with your favourite hockey player saying "We won because we gave 110 per cent" do you need to hear the actual journalist's tape recording, or do you take the journalist at his word?

TWO journalists, (at least one of them a highly respected and award-winning one) saw the tape. They reported on what they saw, the same way they would report a fire, or a riot, or a hockey game. The editor of the largest daily in Canada trusted his journalists enough to run the story in which they wrote that they had seen a video, a few times,  of what appeared to be Ford smoking Crack. As I said earlier the Ontario Press Council also found nothing wrong with the story.

The Toronto Star and Globe and Mail each followed appropriate journalistic guidelines when producing and publishing stories about alleged drug involvement by Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and his brother, Toronto Councilor Doug Ford, the Ontario Press Council has concluded.

[crazy canuck]

but it seems like all along the star had more then enough back up to run the story, which has been shown to be true in the conference today.

Not sure what you mean by "all along".  The Star tried to obtain the video so they could verify before publishing the story.  When they couldnt they ran it anyway.   The Star still hasnt seen the video.  This is all now because the Police Chief has said he has seen a video and that the video is consistent with prior media reports - whatever that might mean.

[crazy canuck]

Look. The Star did nothing wrong. Never. Find a journalism school chairperson, or newspaper editor,  who says anything contrary.

Reporters report on what they see.

Most newspaper, (and other media) articles are based on that. If you see an interivew with your favourite hockey player saying "We won because we gave 110 per cent" do you need to hear the actual journalist's tape recording, or do you take the journalist at his word?

You of all people should know that context is important    Who cares whether a hockey player is saying something that is accurate or whether the quote is accurate.  Who cares whether they gave 110 percent or merely the physically possible 100%.  Who cares if it is hyperbole or not.  Hyperbole is the sports reporters stock in trade.

When it comes to politics I would hope for a higher standard of ethics and reporting than merely being able to say "we did nothing wrong".  OK so the level of reporting met the meagre test of not being defamatory.  Well done.  /golf clap.

TWO journalists, (at least one of them a highly respected and award-winning one) saw the tape. They reported on what they saw, the same way they would report a fire, or a riot, or a hockey game

You of all people should know that when reporters are covering stories in which the facts are disputed they have to be more careful than that.  This isnt just reporting on "what they saw".   What they saw came from a disreputable source and could easily have been altered.  That is why the Star tried to get the video in the first place. 

[Josephus]

For the record the Ontario Press Council does not rule on whether a story is defamatory.

That's a court thing. It's a legal thing. It's actually not a "meagre test".  It involves judges, and lawyers. You of all people should know.

The OPC deals with matters concerning fairness of news coverage, relevance, balance and accuracy. This story passed that test according to the independent body that rules on that.

You might disagree. Write a letter.

[crazy canuck]

For the record the Ontario Press Council does not rule on whether a story is defamatory.

I dont think anyone is confused about that. But they did use the same test as that used in defamation claims to make their determination.

As I said, wonderful, they didnt run afoul of the minimum standard.  But they did report on seeing a video that they could not authenticate and it is only with hindsight that they are in a sense "vindicated".

And btw you are the one that picked this fight with the bs inference that anyone here said the reporters were making stuff up.


That aside I think, by far, the most interesting part of this story are facts which are beyond doubt.

1) The person who is alleged to have had the video is dead
2) The video was obtained by police in the posession of a close associate of the mayor
3) The mayor has always denied the existence of the video.  Which has always struck me as odd.  If someone said they had video of me smoking crack I wouldnt deny the existence of the video (how do I know what someone might have created).  I would be denying that I ever smoked crack.

[Josephus]

Funny thing is I was never calling you out so much with what you call the bs. If you go back and check out those old posts, there was a lot of inference that the whole thing could be made up cause the Star hates Ford. I never said it was your inference.

Let's agree to disagree...

except on your three points. Yes, those are all interesting ones

[crazy canuck]

Let's agree to disagree...

We can agree the inference that the Star published because they were out to get him is bs.   My only beef with them is, well you know by now.

[Josephus]

Good enough.

[Barrister]

Canada still set for government surplus in 2015-2016. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jim-flaherty-projects-3-7b-surplus-in-2015-16-1.2423631

[crazy canuck]

Despite all their blemishes the Conservatives do what they say they will do on fiscal matters.

[Malthus]

Assuming they are not cooking the books somehow, this is awesome news. 

[crazy canuck]

Assuming they are not cooking the books somehow, this is awesome news. 

I dont think they are cooked in that way.  From all reports they are making very conservative estimates (no pun intended) and that the likelihood is that the surplus will be larger than forecast.  And so the "cooking" to the extent it exists is to downplay the potential surplus.  This is probably a prudent thing to do from a fiscal management perpective but it also more in line with the way Harper wishes to govern.  As opposed the the Liberal's version of spending surpluses Harper seems to want to run balanced budgets by decreasing the governments take as he goes.

It is more difficult to do and less flashy but in the end I much prefer that to the old Liberal candy shop approach.

[Neil]

Yeah, they were saying that they had a 3 billion dollar cushion factored into that surplus.

[Grey Fox]