Ford vs. the Toronto Star: There's Enough Blame to go around

This could boil down to a classic case of he said, he said.  Reporter Daniel Dale says he was taking photos for a story from public land, Rob Ford says otherwise.  The story Dale was covering is completely legit- about why Ford would want to buy land near his house to build a security fence; Ford says it was to make more of a play area for his kids.  This might even be a story I would have done but I wouldn't have done it like that.

Covering politics is about relationships.  If you've got good relationships, then you can get the stories; get the quotes you need when you need them. I can think of stories I've been able to get because I've kept good relationships with the people I cover.  If you have bad relationships your work will suffer.

The whole situation raises questions for me.  What was a Reporter with a newspaper that has a known feud (for want of a better term) going on with the Mayor doing anywhere near his house? And taking photos of the area at 7:30 in the evening? At this time of year, that time is when the lighting can be difficult, and if you don't have the proper equipment to compensate for that, or the photo editing software and patience your shots more often than not are going to be bad.

Ford's conduct in hindsight was on the extreme side.  What he probably should've done was to stay inside and call the police.  I can't blame him entirely though; the reaction was natural when you consider he had young children at home, and a history of threats against him and his family.

His reaction now of banning that particular reporter from scrums is in one way reasonable, in another extreme.  It's a reasonable instinct that when you or your family is threatened to want to protect them; it's reasonable to defend them at all costs.  But the thing about reporters is that we have a weird sense of reverse psychology; tell us to go right, we'll turn left... tell us to zig, we'll zag. If we think you're keeping something from us, then we become like the proverbial dog with a bone; we won't stop until we find out what it is.  Ford would do well to remember that before changing his media policy. 

It's courtesy to tell people you may be taking their photo; especially when private interests are concerned.  In this, Ford should be treated like anybody else, and a knock on the door wouldn't have gone amiss... it might have led to a better picture- a way of doing it without using his home.  And perhaps a quote for his story.

The Star's motives are a bit suspect to the say the least.  They have had a well-documented fight going on with Ford, and I don't think we should dismiss the possibility this may have coloured their actions here.  Even when you take this into account there is enough blame to go around.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

Rob Ford & The Toronto Star

There's something refreshing about a politician who picks their stance on an issue, and sticks to it.  That's what Rob Ford continues to do with Toronto Star.  The newspaper printed a  2010 story about Ford and a possible physical confrontation with a high-school football player over a bad performance on the field.  It even says witnesses interviewed even disagree on what actually happened that day. The story was proven wrong by the Globe & Mail, and the Star hasn't apologized for their error.

And the newspaper is supposedly paying the price.  Ford has cut off all access to himself and will not grant them an interview until they apologize for the story.  According to the Star as well, they have allegedly not been getting the news releases on the  Mayor's appearances and schedule from his office.  Being a journalist, this should be a space where I rant on about the freedom of the press to say whatever we want.  But frankly on this one I agree with Mayor Ford.

I agree with Ford because as a Journalist I'm well aware that my professional reputation rests on my stories, and the facts contained in them.  If I'm unable to confirm a fact or figure; or in this case someone's eye witness account it doesn't go into the story, period.  If I publish something that has been clearly proven wrong such as this has been by the Globe & Mail, then I would have no problem admitting I'm wrong. It might stink having to swallow my pride but I'd admit it, and apologize.

The Star's claims that it hasn't been receiving press releases and media advisories from Mayor Ford's office rings completely bogus to me. The Toronto Star is one of Canada's leading daily newspapers, you can't tell me their journalists don't have their "anonymous sources" in the Mayor's Office, or one or two councillors who might happen to be at the same events as Mr. Ford that are talking to the newspaper or willing to share their schedules.

I haven't been at this media business very long, but I have realized two things especially when it comes to politicians; it's about relationships, and access. You have to have one to get the other; if your relationship sours with someone then it's  pretty much game over on the access side of things.

This whole story seems to be a self-made one for the Star designed to try and sell newspapers and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Today's installment was a transcript of an interview Mr. Ford gave to Am640's John Oakley about his apparent "boycott" of the paper.  Ford said he encourages people to read the Globe & Mail, and the Sun instead of the Star.   He also told a story about how they had a party for his newly departed Press Secretary for council, and the media but the Toronto Star were the only ones who didn't show up.

That was the newspaper's choice; and they shouldn't complain about being excluded. It's time the Star either  stayed quiet and take the consequences of its actions- and maybe someday when the Mayor is in a kinder mood have its access restored. Or they could just buck up, admit they were wrong, and apologize.