CBC can't resist a slap across the river on fireworks day

**RealityCheck** · June-21-10, 04:39 PM

Evidently, six years isn't long enough for a Statute of Limitations on cheap shots among neighbours:

"The Windsor Riverfront Plaza has been a popular viewing location for both Canadians and Americans, particularly since 2004, when a man opened fire on a crowd gathered at Detroit's Hart Plaza on the waterfront, wounding nine people.

Not only does this gratuitous "information" appear today in a CBC News report, but it's in paragraph 7 of a 20-paragraph online article.

Must be the unnamed writer and editor, if any, figured that merits more prominent placement than details about Windsor street closings, free city buses, free shuttles and the weather forecast.

N a s t y.

**Gannon** · June-21-10, 05:45 PM

Has it been SIX YEARS already?!

I remember that as if it were yesterday...sitting on the island in the middle of Jefferson underneath the habitrail tube between the Millender Center and the RenCen.

I'm still bothered that the happy-trigger female cop was never mentioned in the news...but I SAW her brought away in one of the first vehicles to drive by. Heard from eye-witnesses that the man wasn't the only one who 'opened fire'.

But yes, this is a new low from our neighbors to the south...they should not gloat, karmic whiplash is a motherfucker.

That said, from >300 miles away, I hope and pray that everything is calm and peaceful and enjoyable for ALL on both sides of this celebration. I really wish I could be there tonight...

Sincerely,
John

**JimminyCricket** · June-21-10, 06:15 PM

So you're complaining for them mentioning something that actually happened?

I'd hate to see your response if they completed fabricated something like this.

lilpup · June-21-10, 06:19 PM

I think it's a little gratuitous. Windsor's waterfront has long been a popular viewing place for both Americans and Canadians, perhaps even moreso in the past [[i.e. when I was a kid) when their waterfront was parkland while ours barely provided access to the river.

**JimminyCricket** · June-21-10, 06:22 PM

Exactly how is it "gratuitous". It's not like the detailed the exact nature of the injuries.

How, IYO, COULD they have mentioned that someone opened fire and injured nine people in a less "gratuitous" way?

**Lonyo exit** · June-21-10, 06:26 PM

Gratuitous? Nine people get shot in front of thousands of witnesses at one of the city's premier events and six years later the shooter is free somewhere. It's not gratuitous; it actually speaks volumes about life in Detroit - the sheer incompetence of the police force, the wanton violence that's so common here, the absence of reliable info despite a huge crowd of witnesses. It speaks to a number of the city's ongoing pathologies.

Nine people shot. Go find them and see how they feel about your implied belief that we should all just forget about this and move on. I wonder if it's that easy for them to do so, particularly since nobody's paid for the crime.

What jaded callousness to say let's just forget it.

**fastcarsandfreedom** · June-21-10, 06:39 PM

It's a dumb comment typical of the navel-gazing CBC. These fireworks are about celebrating the freedom enjoyed by both countries and the shared sacrificies of past generations who have given us that freedom. We are, after all, the two best countries on this earth, and fortunate to live next to each other.

As an aside, no one pays any attention to CBET's local news broadcast--so it's not like this slight will be widely disseminated.

lilpup · June-21-10, 06:41 PM

It's gratuitous because there's no true evidence to support their claim that it was a major factor in anything.

**RealityCheck** · June-21-10, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by JimminyCricket

you're complaining for them mentioning something that actually happened?

. . . Exactly how is it "gratuitous". . . . How, IYO, COULD they have mentioned that someone opened fire and injured nine people in a less "gratuitous" way?

Timing and context matter:

Mentioning it prominently in a 2004 article is news coverage.
Mentioning it in a 2005 fireworks preview is legitimate as a year-after recap.
Mentioning it anywhere in a 2010 fireworks preview is gratuitous.
Placing it in paragraph seven, the top third of this article, is piling on. [[Oh yes, IMO.)

That positioning reflects judgment, or rather lack of a judgment, that reinforcing a 'Detroit is dangerous' meme by dusting off a six-year-old crime deserves higher placement than telling readers:

"Most of downtown is closed off to vehicles starting at 6 p.m."
"All city buses are free after that time."
"A free shuttle bus will carry spectators from Devonshire Mall to downtown.
"Early forecasts indicate the weather will co-operate."

Maybe this'll help, J.C.:

Gratuitous: adj. Without cause; unnecessary or unwarranted; unjustified.

Here's another word that fits:

Irony, as illustrated by the same article's reference to the fireworks' origin "as part of the Windsor-Detroit International Freedom Festival, meant to honour the friendship between the two nations."

Not a friendly article, IMO.

**JimminyCricket** · June-21-10, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by fastcarsandfreedom

It's a dumb comment typical of the navel-gazing CBC. These fireworks are about celebrating the freedom enjoyed by both countries and the shared sacrificies of past generations who have given us that freedom. We are, after all, the two best countries on this earth, and fortunate to live next to each other.

As an aside, no one pays any attention to CBET's local news broadcast--so it's not like this slight will be widely disseminated.

How is it a dumb comment? Windsor is a popular place to watch the fireworks from now, and they explain WHY that is.

I guess they should have just ignored it. In fact, stop reporting negative news, or anything that took place more than a few years ago, altogether.

**JimminyCricket** · June-21-10, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by lilpup

It's gratuitous because there's no true evidence to support their claim that it was a major factor in anything.

I didn't read the article, but from that quote, they are saying that the event happened, and that viewing in Windsor is popular since then. They are not saying that viewing in Windsor is popular BECAUSE of that incident [[though I am, it's obvious to anyone with an IQ above 80).

**JimminyCricket** · June-21-10, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

Timing and context matter:

Mentioning it prominently in a 2004 article is news coverage.
Mentioning it in a 2005 fireworks preview is legitimate as a year-after recap.
Mentioning it anywhere in a 2010 fireworks preview is gratuitous.
Placing it in paragraph seven, the top third of this article, is piling on. [[Oh yes, IMO.)

That positioning reflects judgment, or rather lack of a judgment, that reinforcing a 'Detroit is dangerous' meme by dusting off a six-year-old crime deserves higher placement than telling readers:

"Most of downtown is closed off to vehicles starting at 6 p.m."
"All city buses are free after that time."
"A free shuttle bus will carry spectators from Devonshire Mall to downtown.
"Early forecasts indicate the weather will co-operate."

Maybe this'll help, J.C.:

Gratuitous: adj. Without cause; unnecessary or unwarranted; unjustified.

Here's another word that fits:

Irony, as illustrated by the same article's reference to the fireworks' origin "as part of the Windsor-Detroit International Freedom Festival, meant to honour the friendship between the two nations."

Not a friendly article, IMO.

That's great, but it's not what I asked.

I asked how they could have mentioned that someone opened fire injuring nine people at the event six years ago. Your long response with addressing my question says to me that you have no answer.

To suggest that no mention should be made because it took place more than a year ago is silly. Complain about fabrications, not reporting of the facts.

**RealityCheck** · June-21-10, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Lonyo exit

What jaded callousness to say let's just forget it.

Way to swerve sharply around the point, Lonyo. Careful you don't miss your exit.

Today's event preview at cbc.ca doesn't focus on unsolved mysteries, urban pathologies, police competence, uncooperative witnesses or victims' post-traumatic stress. All of those are real issues and worthy of journalistic inquiry.

Call me old-fashioned [[that's a you betcha, too), but I don't expect a cold case reminder to be shoehorned into a feature headlined Windsor-Detroit fireworks illuminate friendship and with these top paragraphs:

The riverfront in Windsor, Ont., will be the site one of the most colourful, explosive celebrations of international friendship Monday, as a fireworks display draws hundreds of thousands to line both sides of the Canada-U.S. border.

The annual display of pyrotechnics high over the Detroit River began in 1959 and has become the event that unofficially marks the start of summer.

And come on now, Lonyo: Are you seriously suggesting the crime reference is a public service reminder that "six years later the shooter is free somewhere." Really? That's what you're going with -- this may be like the Green River Stranlger or Son of Sam?

He's been laying low for six years, but we shouldn't drop our vigilance?

Next you'll say CBC should have mentioned Cassandra and Cossondra Rutherford of 1991 fireworks night beat-down infamy. Too bad the Canadians didn't have space to dust off that one while advancing a riverside show designed to "illuminate friendship," eh?

**RealityCheck** · June-21-10, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by JimminyCricket

I didn't read the article.

You regain a fractional point for honesty.

But next time you may want to click through and bring some knowledge before chirping. Just IMO.

**Sstashmoo** · June-21-10, 07:36 PM

They mentioned something and gave a reason for it. Big deal.

neighbor · June-21-10, 07:37 PM

At least they know more about it than the last Police Chief. I wonder how that investigation is going.

**Lonyo exit** · June-21-10, 08:25 PM

Right, Reality. Let's shoot the messenger. Detroit's reputation for RANDOM violence that goes unsolved is not worth bringing up.

**maxx** · June-21-10, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by JimminyCricket

I didn't read the article, but from that quote, they are saying that the event happened, and that viewing in Windsor is popular since then. They are not saying that viewing in Windsor is popular BECAUSE of that incident [[though I am, it's obvious to anyone with an IQ above 80).

They're probably wishing the Americans would stay home and not clutter the view. If you're not going to lose your money at the casino in Windsor, stay the heck home.

**JimminyCricket** · June-21-10, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

You regain a fractional point for honesty.

But next time you may want to click through and bring some knowledge before chirping. Just IMO.

I didn't need to read the article. The quote in question was included in the first post of this thread. That is what everyone was whining about.

**John** · June-21-10, 10:22 PM

The real story here is that people still actually go across the border to watch the fireworks. Since 9/11, crossing the border has been a complete pain, as discussed on this board earlier this year.

Going to Windsor for fireworks or anything else is not worth the hassle if you ask me.

**1KielsonDrive** · June-22-10, 02:13 AM

Quite a big rhubarb over nothing at all. They made the comments and you got bent out of shape. Phew, I'm glad it wasn't about all the other violence that takes place in Detroit. Shit happens - get over it. When those incidents stop happening, they'll stop being reported and regurgitated. Meanwhile, back at the farm.................

**Zacha341** · June-22-10, 07:35 AM

Hmmm, that's a point. I stopped going to the event years ago. Certain crowds I avoid now... We will continue to get bad press and regurgitations theirin with the crime up-tick as it is... not that I don't apply caution when I am in Windsor or Canada in general. For example they have a serious car theft issue they'd like to keep on the low-low....

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

Quite a big rhubarb over nothing at all. They made the comments and you got bent out of shape. Phew, I'm glad it wasn't about all the other violence that takes place in Detroit. Shit happens - get over it. When those incidents stop happening, they'll stop being reported and regurgitated. Meanwhile, back at the farm.................

**Detroitej72** · June-22-10, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Lonyo exit

Right, Reality. Let's shoot the messenger. Detroit's reputation for RANDOM violence that goes unsolved is not worth bringing up.

Hell, let's bring up the rioting[[by mostly white suburbanites, btw) after the Tigers won the 1984 World Series while were at it, since some like to rehash tales of years past.

**Zacha341** · June-22-10, 09:52 AM

LOL! Good point! I'd not thought of that in years. I can still recall where I was that evening; not too far at CCS slogging away after class on some tedious final project. Too busy and disinterested to attend a baseball game. Lucky me!

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Hell, let's bring up the rioting[[by mostly white suburbanites, btw) after the Tigers won the 1984 World Series while were at it, since some like to rehash tales of years past.

**hamtown mike** · June-22-10, 10:24 AM

Trying to find mention in the press but can't find anything.

I was on a rooftop last night. Shortly after the fireworks ended nearly a dozen motorcycle cops came blaring down Randolph. At first I thought they were escorting a dignitary. When the spotlight copter came in, it became clear they were after somebody/somebodies. A herd of men, and assume-ably panicked bystanders, ran through the parking lot at Randolph and Lafayette. The officers stopped, circled and searched. And that was that. Anyone hear anything?