Gawker, How Dare You(diycouturier.com)
diycouturier.com
Gawker, How Dare You
http://www.diycouturier.com/post/50749002281/fuck-you-gawker
16 comments
I think the outrage is a bit misplaced here. On one hand you have the elected leader of one of the most populous regions in Canada, representing more people than many of the premiers do. He lacks the credibility and leadership to even directly address the accusations, instead hiding behind a single-word shrug off.
The (alleged) dealers are being opportunistic with what is potentially a very valuable asset. They're acting pretty exactly as you'd expect. Unless you spend all your time outraged that drug dealers exist, it makes more sense to be outraged that the mayor is stalling instead of responding.
The (alleged) dealers are being opportunistic with what is potentially a very valuable asset. They're acting pretty exactly as you'd expect. Unless you spend all your time outraged that drug dealers exist, it makes more sense to be outraged that the mayor is stalling instead of responding.
I would contest that exposing corruption, even if it requires paying off some unsavory people, is a form of "lifesaving research".
That's a bit of a stretch, I'd say. In this specific case, unless the mayor's tenure is actually benefiting drug crime more than a $200,000 cash infusion would, I don't see how this could be a net positive.
If it were a matter of "give an illegal bribe to an aide who filmed something illegal being done by an already-corrupt official," that would be different. It's still not "life-saving research" unless that corruption is actually costing lives, but it fits with your argument.
I don't think that's what's going on here. The author seems right on target: They're trying to do something that will incidentally (but obviously) fund a whole lot more harm than it's likely to save.
If it were a matter of "give an illegal bribe to an aide who filmed something illegal being done by an already-corrupt official," that would be different. It's still not "life-saving research" unless that corruption is actually costing lives, but it fits with your argument.
I don't think that's what's going on here. The author seems right on target: They're trying to do something that will incidentally (but obviously) fund a whole lot more harm than it's likely to save.
If we think about it as an isolated case then I completely agree.
However, I think that if we can get this video out there, it might help start a discussion about corruption "raise awareness" and all that kind of hard to measure stuff.
My feeling is that the positive is that this doesn't just go away because a couple of people weren't compelled to do the right thing and just release the video. It's not a totally clean victory having to pay these guys, but IMHO well worth it.
Then again, maybe people just don't care, see: Marion Barry.
Edit: toned it down a little.
However, I think that if we can get this video out there, it might help start a discussion about corruption "raise awareness" and all that kind of hard to measure stuff.
My feeling is that the positive is that this doesn't just go away because a couple of people weren't compelled to do the right thing and just release the video. It's not a totally clean victory having to pay these guys, but IMHO well worth it.
Then again, maybe people just don't care, see: Marion Barry.
Edit: toned it down a little.
What's wrong with writing a story about the supposed video and then notifying the appropriate authorities? Is not stories about the video enough to get the ball rolling? If these people are attempting to blackmail the mayor, then law enforcement will get involved, and surely the truth of the video will eventually see light of day.
Surely law enforcement will act in favor of the public good and not their corrupt politician buddies, surely.
Urgh. Not all law enforcement is corrupt. And if you don't give it a chance, watch it fail, and then write a story about that, you aren't helping with the corruption.
Of course not, but I think the safe bet is to go to some kind of media as opposed to the government with any complaints about / evidence of government corruption.
Gawker paid like $5000 to get the prototype iPhone4. That is $5000 in an industry worth millions for component and accessories makers.
Whoever these guys are I think they severely overestimate the worth of their material. A prototype might be worth $200k a video of the mayor might be worth half of that.
Whoever these guys are I think they severely overestimate the worth of their material. A prototype might be worth $200k a video of the mayor might be worth half of that.
Yeah but it's not $200k of their own money...
I would donate my $20 if I didn't think Mayor Rob Ford is going to by the video first.
So the $200,000 is going, ostensibly, to help the miscreant videographers get the duck out of Fodge, which, let's face it, is a pretty sensible concern after you've exposed a mayor with drug trade connections. Paying sources is not a widely accepted practice in journalism, but if the video is legit, it's hard to argue that this isn't worthwhile journalism...besides the associated health risks, a mayor who thinks he can flout laws that he would have no problem punishing his own citizens with is not a tenable situation for one of North America's most major cities.
The self-righteousness of the OP is also just a bit much:
> Do you - gawker editors, managers, owners - have ANY IDEA what I could do with $200K? Do you know what kind of lifesaving research that could pay for? Do you know how much fresh fruit that could put in elementary schools in our impoverished neighborhoods?
Well, considering the OP works in public policy...he/she should know the answers to both: not very much. There's 250,000 students in the Toronto system...even if the target population here is just a few thousand students...$200K would barely buy a year's supply of fresh fruit.
The school board is, I'm assuming, outside the jurisdiction of the Mayor's office...and yet mayoral policy could have a great effect, beneficial or detrimental, to the citizenry. Will deposing a ostensibly corrupt mayor fix things? Probably not. But to say such an outcome is not at all relevant to what the OP cares about seems a little short-sighted.
The self-righteousness of the OP is also just a bit much:
> Do you - gawker editors, managers, owners - have ANY IDEA what I could do with $200K? Do you know what kind of lifesaving research that could pay for? Do you know how much fresh fruit that could put in elementary schools in our impoverished neighborhoods?
Well, considering the OP works in public policy...he/she should know the answers to both: not very much. There's 250,000 students in the Toronto system...even if the target population here is just a few thousand students...$200K would barely buy a year's supply of fresh fruit.
The school board is, I'm assuming, outside the jurisdiction of the Mayor's office...and yet mayoral policy could have a great effect, beneficial or detrimental, to the citizenry. Will deposing a ostensibly corrupt mayor fix things? Probably not. But to say such an outcome is not at all relevant to what the OP cares about seems a little short-sighted.
Eh, Gawker is kinda bottom of the barrel, if they declined the offer maybe the people with the video would get frustrated and/or bored and just post it to WSHH or YT or whatever.
centre? lol You must not be American. We're busy complaining about the DoJ, IRS, and two administrations that don't have control of their bureaucracies.
You know, the things that matter in American Democracy. ;)
You know, the things that matter in American Democracy. ;)
Did you read the article? This is an article about a Canadian issue. In Canada. Your comment is almost entirely irrelevant.
Richard Florida, the urban studies theorist has called Rob Ford "the worst mayor in the modern history of cities and the most anti-urban mayor ever to preside over a large global city.".
This is hardly an isolated incident. Anyone who has follow Toronto politics is well aware of the numerous scandals and antics of Rob Ford. Read the Conflict of Interest trial and Other Controversies portions of his wikipedia article.
$200k is well worth it to further expose that he is unfit to run a city the size and importance of Toronto, Canada's largest city.
How much is the drug trade worth in Toronto? 10's of millions or more. $200k is a blip on the radar. It's unfortunate that this money has to be paid to unsavory characters, but it's a small price to pay.
Toronto could be much greater than it is. Toronto deserves a better mayor.