The drive-by smear against Shelly Glover
But this week, as a politician, she found herself the victim of a drive-by smear, aided and abetted by the local press.
The scene of the crime was Global News, which carried a short, throwaway interview with Glover about the Conservatives' chances of winning Liberal seats in Manitoba.
Taking one line of her answer out of context, "professional" reporters in the city managed to manufacture a controversy based on the false premise that Glover attacked Liberal Anita Neville for being too old to be in Parliament.
For the record, here's the entire question and answer with Shelly Glover so you can see for yourself exactly what was said about Neville.
Nelly Gonzalez: We know that most, uh, Manitobans here are, uh, usually vote Conservative. What do you think...in many of the ridings....but , I mean, there's a couple that could be up for grabs and we know that Anita Neville is...is...we know there's a mystery candidate that hasn't been announced yet, if it's going to be Joyce Bateman or other names.
Shelly Glover: Sure.
Nelly Gonzalez: What do you know about that and what do you think the chances are for the party to, uh, regain that seat, Winnipeg Centre...North.
Shelly Glover: "Well, Anita Neville is in trouble. I've only been in Parliament for two-and-a-half years, Nellie, and I'll tell ya, there are a lot of shenanigans going on in Parliament. We need some... some fresh blood. We need some new people who come with new ideas and who are wlling to stand up for their constituents."
" I"m afraid Miss Neville has passed her expiry date. Her constitutents are constantly coming to my office because they can't receive service in French... because they can't receive phone calls back... I think Miss Neville is, uh, is, uh, going to, uh, be defeated."
"I do know who the candidate is, but the person is not the candidate of record yet. Let's see how that plays itself out."
"As I say, I think our philosophy is very different. We stand by what we say. We don't flip flop. When we say we're going to do something we actually do it. The record of Anita Neville's party, the Liberal party, is not a record similar to ours. We have a number of issues of the past to address because they said one thing and did another. Things like the gun registry. It's a big issue." (She then talks a bit about support for changing the gun registry.)
" I think Anita Neville's done. I think Ray Simard is going to try his best. But I think the constituents are definitely going to stick with me."
The "professional" journalists in town --- you know, the highly trained professionals we're supposed to trust to get it right because of their expertise --- reduced her answer to one phrase, "passed her expiry date", and concluded it was an attack on Neville's advanced age.
You can see for yourself how wrong that was.
Glover said Neville as no longer serving her constituents adequately and needed to be replaced.
Not one of the news outlets bothered to put the comment in context. Even Global, which linked to the original interview, failed to rebroadcast Glover's whole answer while fanning the bogus controversy.
Winnipeg Free Press columnist Dan Lett failed to even listen to the Glover interview, or else he simply ignored it to promote the Liberal Party agenda. He wrote a column reading Glover's mind and commenting on what he imagined she meant when he could have listened to what she said and known what she meant.
This is what passes for "journalism" in Winnipeg.
But before leaving, let's take a brief look at the issue raised by the MSM, however falsely---Anita Neville's age.
- She's 68 years old. CBC refused to say how old she was, playing it coy by calling her sixty-something. (At 44, Glover is 24 years younger.)
Neville will be 69 in July. She was born during World War Two.
- She's been collecting an old-age pension for almost 5 years.
- If re-elected she will be among the ten oldest MPs in Parliament.
Even Lett said she's "somewhat mobility challenged". In other words, she has a hard time walking.
If her age was a legitimate issue, don't you think these facts should have been reported by the "professional" journalists?
So whose interests were the "professionals" serving when they launched the drive-by smear on Shelly Glover?