Rob Ford crack story: Is seeing believing?

A sidebar to the current scandal surrounding Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is the debate about the medias role in covering the entire affair.

• The Current: Reporting on Rob Ford: Is seeing believing?
• Toronto Mayor Rob Ford denies using crack cocaine.
• Rob Ford's office reportedly tipped to location of video.
• Gawker hits fundraising goal to buy alleged Ford crack video.

Both the Toronto Star and the U.S. gossip website Gawker published stories last month claiming their journalists have viewed a video of Ford smoking what appears to be crack cocaine.

The story set off a media frenzy, but it has been more than two weeks since it came to light.

With the alleged tape yet to surface, questions are turning to how news organizations have covered the story.

The Toronto mayor andhis brother, Coun. Doug Ford, have admonished the coverage of the story while denying the tape exists. Last week, Doug Ford said the stories about his brother are proof journalism has sunk "to an all-time low."

The coverage prompted Rob Ford to call the news media a "bunch of maggots," a statement he later apologized for.

But have news organizations fallen short of their own ethical standards in covering this story?

Mondays edition of The Current on CBC Radio One tackled the issue, with host Anna Maria Tremonti speaking to a panel that included:

• Star reporter Robyn Doolittle.
• Ivor Shapiro, chair of the Ryerson University School of Journalism.
• National Post columnist Matt Gurney.

Discussion quickly turned to the issue of whether the tape even exists.

"Its interesting to me that people believe there is some mass conspiracy between two organizations and three separate people," said Doolittle, one of two Star reporters who claim to have viewed the video.

"Its fair that people are questioning the things that theyre reading," she said. "The people who dont believe it, maybe wont believe it even when theyre confronted with the video.

News consumer want to see the goods

Shapiro said the advent of social media means news consumers now want to see material with their own eyes, instead of simply trusting reporters accounts.

"The expectations of audiences is raised and therefore the skepticism of audiences is raised," he said. "Thats not a bad thing in a democracy, that the public is skeptical. It raises an unfortunate situation when the video isnt available."

Gurney agreed.

"During the Boston [Marathon] bombing, media scrambled to catch up with what people were tweeting. [People] expect to see it with their own eyes and have some of the gaps filled by followup reporting."

Gurney said he believes the video does exist, adding hes doubtful three journalists from two different organizations would falsify or get wronga story on which their journalistic reputation hinges.

Chequebook journalism?

Also at issue is the question of whether its right to pay for such a video.

Doolittle said the Star had been pursuing the story for weeks prior to the Gawkers scoop about the tape that came to light May 16.

The Gawker story essentially forced the Star to publish what they hadgathered the next day. According to the Star's account, Doolittle and another reporter were shown the video on a cellphone by people asking $100,000 for it, a price the Star wouldnt pay.

Gawker raised $200,000 to buy the video in an online campaign, but were unable to complete the purchase, sayingit hadlost contact with the person possessingit. The Star has also reported difficultly in trying to re-establish contact with the person who showed them the tape.

The use of so-called "chequebook journalism," while common in other countries, is controversial in Canada.

CBC does not pay sources for information related to a story. (CBC does payfees at recognized rates to specialists for an expert report or a scientific analysis of a story).

Unnamed sources a 'necessary evil'?

Doolittle said most people she hasspoken to about the Ford video story are angry the Star didnt purchase the video.

"The biggest backlash that Ive had is, Why didnt you guys buy the tape? [Why didn't you] give $100,000 to drug dealers for the greater good of the city?'"

Another issue is the use of unnamed sources.

In the days following the original Gawker and Star stories about the tape, the Star dug up other details, including a story alleging the mayor knew in which apartment the video was stashed. On their weekly radio show Sunday, the Fords demanded that the Star apologize for that story.

Shapiro said unnamed sources make editors uncomfortable, but said they are often an "necessary evil" for any journalist working to uncover information others want to suppress.

"Ive never met a reporter who likes to use anonymous sources," he said. "I dont think anyone should be expected to kill a story because their sources cant be named."