Much Ado

Semantics, timing and deliberate misinterpretation. Mischief. An attempt to make a scandal out of a story that should have had no legs. A simple observation that made eminently good sense given a sinister spin. The result being that seniors everywhere sat up to take notice and definitely did not appreciate what they heard. What they heard is not what was said, nor intended.

Inconvenient details have a habit of getting in the way of a good story that has ongoing repercussions.

An interview with a political rival, making a simple observation. That, in her opinion an incumbent running for re-election in the next riding to hers was coasting along, not really doing her job of representation. Global news reporter Nelly Gonzalez interviewed Winnipeg MP (Conservative) Shelly Glover. Prompting Ms. Glover to her opinion on MP (Liberal) Anita Neville.

Plainspoken and direct:

"I think Anita Neville is in trouble. I've only been in Parliament for two-and-a-half years, Nelly, and I'll tell ya, there are a lot of shenanigans going on in Parliament. We need some fresh blood, we need some new people who have some new ideas and who are willing to stand up for their constituents. And I'm afraid Ms. Neville has passed her expiry date. Her constituents are constantly coming to my office because they can't receive service in French, because they can't get a call back. I think Ms. Neville is going to be defeated."

Clear enough: ..."Her constituents are constantly coming to my office because they can't receive service in French, because they can't get a call back." In office far too long, due diligence evaporated, time for a change.

But ripe for being deliberately misconstrued because that's where the story is. It shouldn't be there, it should be in the statement that constituents were clearly dissatisfied with the lack of service on their behalf by someone whom they had elected to represent their interests. The quote by MP Glover was taken from a transcript based on raw video.

But then Nelly Gonzalez, four hours later, appears to talk about a story about an insulting ageist 'gaffe'. Ms. Gonzalez is introduced by Anchor Peter Chura on Global Winnipeg Evening News with the statement: "A high-profile Tory suggested that a Liberal MP is just too old for the job". The transcript of the aired segment is far different from the original:

"We need some fresh blood, we need some new people who have some new ideas and who are willing to stand up for their constituents. And I'm afraid Ms. Neville has passed her expiry date."

A damning little excision there. It's what you call taking something out of the context of its original explicating content. And the response from MP Neville upon hearing the truncated version of the interview?

"It's typical of the Conservative party when they don't have anything real or substantive to say to resort to name-calling and personal attacks, it's typical of the party and Shelly."

Now who is being objectionable? It's like reacting to hearsay. Someone feels they've been spurned and denigrated and they respond acerbically. Unfairly too, as the instance indicates. But that's not all. The segment is posted to YouTube. And elder hysteria erupts, with CARP demanding a retraction, characterizing MP Glover and the Conservative Party as ageist.

Another opportunity for MP Neville to express her indignation: "I am not so much offended for myself as I am outraged on behalf of all seniors - especially senior women - whom the Conservatives seem to think are past their 'expiry' dates." And so, she does not feel obligated to respond to her constituents' dissatisfaction, but she does feel justified in rousing public opinion on her side.

It's called political opportunism. And it seems to work. Despite Ms. Glover's assertion of innocence of sinister intent in further clarifying her statement: "My remarks were clear: I was referring to Ms. Neville's performance as an MP, and only that."

Not good enough for the Liberal Party, issuing another statement to the trial-by-media: Which claims that Ms. Glover launched a "personal, ageist attack" on Ms. Neville, proffering a "weak attempt to cover up her gaffe", in insisting on claiming she referred to an unsatisfactory long-time tenure.

Balderdash and unholy crap!