CTV London News Anchor Dan MacLellan Arrested - Page 2

MolsonExport · #21 Posted **Dec 30, 2011, 4:18 AM**

^like AM deC-B?

askingquestions · #22 Posted **Dec 30, 2011, 4:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony

Sounds like you have no idea how the Criminal Code or the justice system works in this country.

Actually I have worked in the justice system and I do have a lot of first hand experience with how the system works, specifically with young offenders and family court. Judges base decisions on personal beliefs, which may or may not be a good thing, lawyers are afraid to rock the boat and there is no such thing as innocent until found guilty, especially if the case gets into the news.
I did like the comment about the name of the accused appearing in the news but not the alleged victim. If he is innocent until found guilty why should he have to suffer public scrutiny but his accuser gets to hide. Put forth her name and let the public decide if she is credible.

Snark · #23 Posted **Dec 30, 2011, 5:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by manny_santos

This isn't the first time an evening news anchor has disappeared from CFPL under unusual circumstances. They had an anchor in the 80s who died in a car crash.

I remember that day. Neil Stevens was well liked. I remember his co-anchor Kate Young giving out the story on the six o'clock news. I guess that she thought that she could do it and hold it together on-air. She didn't and broke down live. It was all just really really sad.

It was a simpler time. Local newscasters were well known people who became part of the community identity. In those days most people watched the local 6 o'clock news because (1) it was one of the best Canadian TV news broadcasts and, (2) it was the best source for current events. There was no CNN, no live satellite links to the other side of the world. The local reporting was very good. Bill Brady, Jack Burghardt, Jay Campbell, Hugh Bremner, Tom Byrd (don't forget to feed the birds), Pete James, and many more were local household names.

When one of this group was tragically killed, it was a big deal.

MolsonExport · #24 Posted **Dec 30, 2011, 2:10 PM**

^those were the days. Although my recollections are with respect to the Anglo-Montreal news anchors of the seventies and eighties.

K85 · #25 Posted **Dec 30, 2011, 6:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snark

I remember that day. Neil Stevens was well liked. I remember his co-anchor Kate Young giving out the story on the six o'clock news. I guess that she thought that she could do it and hold it together on-air. She didn't and broke down live. It was all just really really sad.

What happened?? She lost her marbles live??

manny_santos · #26 Posted **Dec 30, 2011, 8:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by K85

What happened?? She lost her marbles live??

I was too young to remember but I'm told she was in tears on-air.

This topic was avoided completely when "The New PL" celebrated its 50th anniversary, especially as Kate Young was still at the station and was a part of the special programming.

go_leafs_go02 · #27 Posted **Dec 30, 2011, 9:08 PM**

News is quiet on the matter - with only AM980 and co actually talking about it, and CTV News acknowledging it during their newscast (likely because of AM980 bringing it up)

Oddly enough, the Free Press has been completely silent on this matter... Wonder if they thought what AM980 did was bushleague and decided to take the high road and wait to report until further details came out.

newswatcher31 · #28 Posted **Dec 31, 2011, 9:06 PM**

As somebody who works in the media here's what I'll say. The reason why the London Free Press may refrain from reporting on Dan MacLellan is for a couple reasons. First of all in journalism it is very difficult reporting on your 'own'. When reporting on a fellow journalist more or less the questions of ethics come into play. With London being the size it is many people in the media personally know or have come into contact with Dan. You also have to remember that the media wouldn't normally report on typical assaults unless the circumstances are not ordinary so why make an exception to the rule when it involves somebody who reports the news? From the sounds of it it appears that London Police don't need much to go on when they arrest somebody. I agree its not fair to allow Dan's name be published while allowing the victim's name to be withheld. Either release both or withhold both names until the conclusion of the case. If Dan is convicted than he can say goodbye to his career in the media or at least on camera. Nobody will want him no matter how remorseful he is. But if he's acquitted he'll still have this hanging over his head. If people Google his name than they'll see what he was once accused of doing, but you'll also always have the people who don't know him that could think he still did the crime for the heck of it. All I can suggest at this point is that should he be acquitted its likely he won't be back on-air right away and will probably be working off camera.

manny_santos · #29 Posted **Jan 1, 2012, 1:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by newswatcher31

As somebody who works in the media here's what I'll say. The reason why the London Free Press may refrain from reporting on Dan MacLellan is for a couple reasons. First of all in journalism it is very difficult reporting on your 'own'. When reporting on a fellow journalist more or less the questions of ethics come into play. With London being the size it is many people in the media personally know or have come into contact with Dan. You also have to remember that the media wouldn't normally report on typical assaults unless the circumstances are not ordinary so why make an exception to the rule when it involves somebody who reports the news? From the sounds of it it appears that London Police don't need much to go on when they arrest somebody. I agree its not fair to allow Dan's name be published while allowing the victim's name to be withheld. Either release both or withhold both names until the conclusion of the case. If Dan is convicted than he can say goodbye to his career in the media or at least on camera. Nobody will want him no matter how remorseful he is. But if he's acquitted he'll still have this hanging over his head. If people Google his name than they'll see what he was once accused of doing, but you'll also always have the people who don't know him that could think he still did the crime for the heck of it. All I can suggest at this point is that should he be acquitted its likely he won't be back on-air right away and will probably be working off camera.

Very good insight. However, the Free Press devoted a LOT of coverage to the drinking-and-driving adventures of our former Mayor's husband. If it was Anne-Marie DeCicco-Best herself that got caught driving impaired, it would have been very newsworthy, but the fact it was a man who happened to be married to the Mayor and happened to own a well-known business that had been in the news a number of times. It just seemed to get a lot of coverage for what it was, when other citizens are arrested for the same offense all the time and never get in the news unless they were involved in an accident.

Democracy4All · #30 Posted **Jan 1, 2012, 2:45 PM**

What Ever Happened to Innocent until Proven Guilty? I feel the Legal System will Prevail and Dan will be Vindicated or shall be Guilty. It is not for us to be Judge & Jury, for most of us have Skeletons in our Closets and would not like people pointing the finger at us, when we know nothing about the Facts. for right now it is nothing but he said she said and it is up to the Legal System to figure it out , Not Us! That's why Canada is a Great Country and Our Legal System is a part of Democracy!

askingquestions · #31 Posted **Jan 1, 2012, 6:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Democracy4All

What Ever Happened to Innocent until Proven Guilty? I feel the Legal System will Prevail and Dan will be Vindicated or shall be Guilty. It is not for us to be Judge & Jury, for most of us have Skeletons in our Closets and would not like people pointing the finger at us, when we know nothing about the Facts. for right now it is nothing but he said she said and it is up to the Legal System to figure it out , Not Us! That's why Canada is a Great Country and Our Legal System is a part of Democracy!

It is because we live in such a great country that we have the right to comment. I haven't read anyone convicting him, but we are the jury ultimately. The point here seems to be, will he ever, regardless of the court outcome, be considered completely innocent?

newswatcher31 · #32 Posted **Jan 1, 2012, 10:53 PM**

Keep in mind though in a court of law you are either acquitted or found guilty. An acquittal doesn't mean you're innocent, it just means there's not enough evidence to convict you.

manny_santos · #33 Posted **Jan 1, 2012, 11:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by askingquestions

It is because we live in such a great country that we have the right to comment. I haven't read anyone convicting him, but we are the jury ultimately. The point here seems to be, will he ever, regardless of the court outcome, be considered completely innocent?

Once you're accused of a crime and it becomes public, you have a big problem, even if you're truly innocent. I remember when O.J. Simpson was first arrested, a lot of people talked about him as if he was guilty, even before the trial began. Of course, today I believe his was guilty, but a lot of people jumped to conclusions quickly before he even went to his fair trial.

Blitz · #34 Posted **Jan 2, 2012, 4:28 AM**

What's the deal with this thread? A bunch of newbies have signed up just to post about this and there's been such a high view count.

go_leafs_go02 · #35 Posted **Jan 2, 2012, 4:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitz

What's the deal with this thread? A bunch of newbies have signed up just to post about this and there's been such a high view count.

I've been wondering that myself - I can't figure it out, although I've seen a little bit of banter out there regarding the issue on AM 980's Facebook page, and some twitter posts - but I think this is the only forum where the issue is being discussed. There's seemingly always a few dozen people viewing the forum at the same time too.

Soon it'll pass the "dead malls" thread in view counts....and I have NO clue why.

haljackey · #36 Posted **Jan 2, 2012, 5:06 AM**

Someone's obviously linking to this thread from a website or something. Perhaps AM980 or a London-based site.

I've checked some big sites like Twitter and Reddit and they don't have any links.

Anyways, I don't have much to say on the topic. To be honest I haven't always connected with Dan's "tv face/persona" but everyone is different in reality. I did not expect this, however.

I wonder what might happen to his job though.

go_leafs_go02 · #37 Posted **Jan 2, 2012, 5:14 AM**

Local journalist Philip McLeod weighs in on this interesting story, mostly just how weirdly it's been covered in the local media:

http://themcleodreport.ca/home/866-s...nchor-man.html

Quote from someone at the London Free Press: "We checked it out and took a pass."

Democracy4All · #38 Posted **Jan 3, 2012, 12:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by askingquestions

It is because we live in such a great country that we have the right to comment. I haven't read anyone convicting him, but we are the jury ultimately. The point here seems to be, will he ever, regardless of the court outcome, be considered completely innocent?

You are right this is a Great Country , and just by him being arrested, damage has been done, no matter what the Outcome!!

go_leafs_go02 · #39 Posted **Jan 8, 2012, 11:48 PM**

Free Press finally explains why they didn't bother covering this story.

http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2012/01/06/19211716.html

manny_santos · #40 Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 11:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Free Press finally explains why they didn't bother covering this story.

http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2012/01/06/19211716.html

And by publishing this, they are effectively covering the story.