October 28, 2002
Since Harold Ballard’s death in 1990, the media hasn’t had poor Hal to kick around anymore--until recently.
In one of four new Maple Leafs Gardens’ sexual assault claims that surfaced in the last couple of weeks, one mentioned an incident that included the former controversial owner of the Leafs. The allegations are that Ballard asked one of the minors who had been abused by John Roby and Gordon Stuckless to perform a sexual act upon him, and, when rebuffed, banned him from the Gardens.
Ballard, of course can’t defend himself and the allegations are newsworthy but the media continued to bash him. The fairest report of the alleged incident appeared on Citytv. In addition to reporting the incident, City aired an interview with Detective Dave Tredrea of the Toronto Police. Tredrea, the lead investigator on the Maple Leaf Gardens sex scandal in the late 90s said that he had interviewed 350 alleged victims during the initial investigation and that Ballard’s name had never come up. Statements like Tredrea’s are the best that can be done to ensure fairness in reporting events that occurred in private between two people, one of whom is no longer able to give his version.
When the National Post reported Yolanda Ballard’s comments on the matter, the headline read "Ballard’s lover calls abuse claims ‘unbelievable’". Lover? The two had lived in a common law relationship for years. When has any media outlet ever referred to Isobel Bassett as Premier Ernie Eves "lover"? Probably never. Although Bassett is sometimes referred to as a common law wife, she usually gets the designation of "life partner," whatever that is. In an era where the term "spouse" is forever expanding, only someone like Ballard who is reviled by the media would have his common law wife referred to as his "lover."
And the winner is….
During CNN’s almost continuous coverage of "Sniper on the Loose," the 24-hour network was not getting too much information from the authorities. As anyone who has watched even a little of the coverage knows, the news network has spent a lot of time interviewing profilers and psychologists who are engaged in non-stop guessing about who the sniper was and why he did what he allegedly did. Although this may be interesting in small doses, CNN, much like the sniper, is engaging in overkill.
The time devoted to guesses and speculations, creates a good atmosphere for the talking heads to ask stupid questions and make ridiculous comments. Perhaps the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences should create a special Emmy award for "most ridiculous statement made or question asked during a Breaking News Story.". A top contender for the award would be Larry King, who asked one of the expert guessers whether he thought that the sniper would be watching his program. So as not to leave anyone in suspense, the answer was "yes."
One of the dumbest comments came from CNN host Leon Harris. During the late morning of October 22, CNN broadcast the fact that Conrad Johnson, the 35-year-old bus driver from Montgomery County, Maryland, had died in hospital. CNN’s information turned out to be correct, but had not come from the hospital itself and the publication of the news may have been made prior to all of Johnson’s family members being notified. Harris apologized profusely for the error and kept repeating that CNN tries to be as "sympathetic" to families as possible.
Harris then turned to a doctor, a CNN doctor who knew nothing more about the case than anyone who was watching did. Harris asked him if Johnson could have lived if anything have been done differently. The shocked physician stated that he was shot in the chest and probably not. The doctor went on to say that this is not the time to try and blame third parties for the death. As well as speculating on the sniper, Harris was now speculating that perhaps the emergency personnel were somehow at fault for the bus driver’s death. Harris was giving friends and family something else to worry about. The "sympathy" to the families didn’t last too long.
Arthur Weinreb is a lawyer and author and Associate Editor of Canadafreepress.com
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2018 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2018 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement