Media Party circles the wagons in defence of crappy journalism

In yesterday's National Post there were columns by Andrew Coyne and Chris Selley discussing, in part, the journalism surrounding Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's alleged crack smoking.  At least the focus is on the real problem - the media, instead of the steady stream of innuendo about Ford .  But, to me, both columns are just more of the Media Party's circling of the wagons around their own, spinning their biases into a transparent rationalization of crappy journalism.

Towards the end of Coyne's column he says that the alleged Ford video couldn't have been faked because some alleged tech experts have said so. That's a highly dubious assertion. Such a video can indeed be faked, at least one sufficiently good enough to dupe gullible reporters on the prowl for dirt on Ford, who viewed it on a tiny screen in the back of a dope dealer's car, at night. The hard part about faking such videos is making them good enough to avoid detection on close inspection. Could this be the reason the video hasn't surfaced? This is precisely why the Star should not have published the story. They didn't have the video in their possession and were therefore unable to have it technically authenticated.

Coyne also yaps about the alleged sterling reputations of the Star reporters asking whether they'd risk them, along with possible "heavy financial losses", if they didn't have grounds to believe their story to be true. 

Here's a clue for Coyne: why don't you review the case of that once reputable, highly acclaimed journalist DAN RATHER?  You know, the one where Rather let his biases and enthusiasm for screwing George W Bush get the better of him when he published a smear based on a phony memorandum.  Sounds very similar to the Star story on Ford, doesn't it?

Near the end of Selley's column he defends the Star's ethically dubious journalism:

"Journalistic standards are important; but are the ones that journalism schools are teaching still appropriate? Much of the criticism the Star itself has endured — speak to standards that non-mainstream outfits can very profitably ignore, while greatly furthering the public interest."

Really?! How does publishing smear stories based on unverified, possibly unverifiable, videos "greatly further the public interest".  No doubt Selley believes Ford is guilty -  where there's smoke (generated by "reputable" journalists) there's inevitably fire. No evidence required.

Selley, like Coyne attaches significance to the reputations of the Star and its reporters. But there's nary a peep (by either) about the damage being unjustly done to the reputation of their victim, Rob Ford.