Press body rejects complaints over Rob, Doug Ford drug-allegation coverage

The title of the article isn't "Toronto Star vindicated in Rob Ford crack video story" but "Press body rejects complaints over Rob, Doug Ford drug-allegation coverage".

Just in case you didn't notice.

Big difference between being vindicated for posting what you hope is the truth than actually posting what is the truth.

This ruling shows just how far journalism has sunk in Canada. Now it appears that you can report on a story with no irrefutable evidence and then, when asked to produce it and can't a group of your peers will be quite willing to exonerate you anyway.

It's starting to sound alot like the when the Police investigate themselves.

So given this latest blockbuster revelation, Rob Ford is still innocent and the Toronto Star is still out to get him. Who would have thought.

Big surprise who posted this

I read that the reporter who saw the alleged video has a book coming out.
Another big leftie surprise..

That's a pretty pathetic rewriting a headline, BF.

That's a pretty pathetic rewriting a headline, BF.


Right...

Nobody around here does that.

Manitoba Chief bitches again

So? "Toronto Star vindicated in Rob Ford crack video story" and "Press rejects complaints over Rob, Doug Ford drug-allegation coverage" are the exact same thing. Those two sentences convey exactly the same information/message.

But the important point here is that all of you who were bitching that these allegations were in any way fantastic or unsupported are all wet. This process confirms that the Star and Globe followed all the journalistic standards expected of a credible news organization. They DID NOT print unconfirmed innuendo. They DID NOT defame the Fords. Their stories WERE NOT rumours. But is that message heard by you people? Nope, you just care that BeaverFever changed the thread title a bit.

I didn't post it or change the title.

Sorry, my boo-boo. Corrected.

Fixed

Fixed

But not "Manitoba Chief bitches again"?

Can I ask what the difference is?

Fixed

But not "Manitoba Chief bitches again"?

Can I ask what the difference is?
Never saw it.

So? "Toronto Star vindicated in Rob Ford crack video story" and "Press rejects complaints over Rob, Doug Ford drug-allegation coverage" are the exact same thing. Those two sentences convey exactly the same information/message.

But the important point here is that all of you who were bitching that these allegations were in any way fantastic or unsupported are all wet. This process confirms that the Star and Globe followed all the journalistic standards expected of a credible news organization. They DID NOT print unconfirmed innuendo. They DID NOT defame the Fords. Their stories WERE NOT rumours. But is that message heard by you people? Nope, you just care that BeaverFever changed the thread title a bit.
It's funny really. When the cops or govt investigate themselves it's a farce. When the media does it, it's a "process" that honestly vindicates one of their members.

Pretty much everyone here knows how I feel about McGuinty. Yet if a newspaper released a story claiming there's video of him humping sheep in some field, I wouldn't be satisfied with the veracity of the story with seeing just a single photo that can easily be photo-shopped as proof, particularly when the video just "disappears".

In this day and age with people being a lot more technically savvy than even just 20 years ago, a picture doesn't speak a thousand words so much anymore as it says exactly what the producer of the picture it to say.

Whether you want to believe a story or not has absolutely zero impact on whether it's true or not. The reporters saw more than a single photo. They saw the whole video. Independent sources verified the existence of the video and its content. That's the standard that's needed before printing a story. And that standard is what sets real news agencies apart from tabloids. If that standard isn't enough for you, well, then you're holding the press to a higher standard than they've ever been held to. That's fine, but that means you're unwilling to accept anything ever reported in the press.

But real news agencies don't do that. That's why they are credible sources. They adhere to journalistic standards including the need for independent confirmation before releasing a story. The picture isn't photo-shopped. If it had appeared in some tabloid, you'd have a point. Real news agencies don't do that sort of thing. They adhere to a code of ethics and, by doing so over many decades, have EARNED a reputation for honest reporting.

The Toronto Star has journalistic standards? That is funny, tell us another joke.