I think that, for some reason, the Toronto Star
is still afraid of Rob Ford. Maybe it's just a reflex action. They can't stop saying that they
are glad that the "Ford Era" is finally over and . . . can't stop rehashing the "Ford Era's" more lurid moments, over and over again.
They are already running the 2018 "smear Ford" campaign and will probably continue to do so right up until the ballots are cast in 2018.
It's comical. It must be post traumatic stress syndrome.
The Family Compact
fumbled the ball in letting Ford get elected and now they have a death grip on it, even after winning the rematch, which
they stole fair and square.
Poor Toronto Star. They didn't smear Ford hard enough in the election he won, and they are bound and determined never to let that happen again.
They conducted a campaign of harrassment against Ford from the moment he was elected and never let up. Summarizing, they told us he was a lout, he was
boorish, he was a drunk, he smoked illegal substances, he roughed up his wife, he offered her to his friends for sexual pleasure, he ran around with
his old high school chums , who were drug users and drug dealers, he abused his position to get a ride for his high school football team on a city bus
when it was raining and on and on. It's a long list. They accused him of corruption in getting favors from City Hall for constituents of his.
They lied about how much money he saved the City.
Most of what they complained about was petty, but optically awkward and embarassing stuff. It was what it was.
The Star never understood why voters in Toronto elected Rob Ford. They were blind to voter dissatisfaction with the "entitlement culture" at City
I suspect that at least some of Mr. Ford's boorish conduct and substance abuse might have been related to his health problems.
Ford has had various health issues, including asthma and kidney stones. In 2014, Ford was diagnosed with abdominal cancer for which he is
In 2009, doctors removed a tumour from Ford's appendix.[dubious – discuss] In 2011, Ford was treated for a kidney stone at the Sunnybrook Health
Sciences Centre. He was hospitalized twice in 2012, again for kidney stones and once for stomach and throat symptoms that aggravated his
It is not at all unusual for people with painful or chronically uncomfortable health conditions to be irritable, seemingly inconsiderate and drug and
That doesn't excuse the behavior but it does provide a possible explanation of the behavior which goes beyond character assassination
territory that the Toronto Star would prefer to remain within when dealing with Mr. Ford.
Now we have leaks
emanating from an alleged report by Toronto's ombudsman, Fiona Crean
According to Gawker
, uh, I mean the Toronto Star, Crean's report on her examination of the conduct of security guards employed by the City of
Toronto, contains examples of the use of these guards by Rob Ford, to shield himself from from press scrutiny when "in his cups".
Shame, shame, shame.
According to the Star, Crean's report will also rehash examples of boorish, clumsy and dangerous hippo-like charges indulged in by Mr. Ford at council
meetings, during occasions when the media were pressing him. As far as I know, the score is all even on damages inflicted during the charges. Pam
McConnell was bowled over in one charge and Ford sustained a head injury during another, when like a rhino with poor eyesight, he butted his head into
a television camera.
Was this information, the alleged contents of the report by Fiona Crean, leaked to the Star by Ms. Crean as a result of pressure emanating from deep
within the bowels of the Family Compact apparatus within city government? Did they want to give The Star a scoop as a reward for services rendered
during the election of their man, John Tory?
Was it improper for an upright, non-"hippo"critcal newspaper, like the august Toronto Star, to print information leaked from a report prior to its
official release, when the tenor of the report might still be changed, or when the report might actually be emmended considerably in a way which would
make the Star's interpretation of the report misleading?
I know a tabloid like Gawker would print the leaks because that is the tabloid modus operandi
. Print the lies in one edition. Defend the lies
in another edition. Print the retraction of the lies in a third edition. Print the reluctant, smarmily worded apology in the fourth edition, at the
bottom of the page in which the rag's charitable fund is featured.
Anyway, I, myself, me, certainly would not indulge in this kind of petty political sniping so far in advance of an election. The next election for
Mayor of Toronto is in 2018, after all. Of course, I am not suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome
as the Toronto Star is.
If Rob Ford, Toronto's next Mayor, actually did commandeer a city bus to keep his high school footballers out of the rain, that would be monstrous of
course, in "Star Land"
. If he didn't want to be seen tipsy in the media and instructed a security guard to block a camera from recording him,
that too would be an outrage, in "Star Land"
A lot of the other stuff he either did or is alleged to have done, would be, and was, highly problematic in the minds of Toronto voters, all except
saving the hundreds of millions of dollars of course.
That was OK.
One doesn't really want to be bothered with this sort of thing, at this point in the city's history.
One tends to side with the "thank God the Ford era is finally over"
side of the Toronto Star's bi-polar personality, in matters like this, and
not with the obsessive compulsive side of the Star that says, ". . . and furthermore did you know, I guess I told you before a hundred times but
just to put finish to the bastard again, that Rob Ford told one of his security guards to stand in front of a security camera, so people wouldn't see
that he was drunk again, and he knocked over Pam McConnell too, the clumsy oaf?"
It just seems so addled for a paper to act like the Star does, on the subject of Rob Ford.
I have an actual journalism idea!
End of Part one.
edit on 29-4-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)