MLA Deborah Drever calls identical holiday message an ‘unfortunate error'

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

...Pretty classless of you.

Classless? As in having no class? Or as in a society sense? I find some people using this word without really knowing what it stands for.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

haha, Oh Deborah, just can't catch a break. All these mix-ups and misunderstandings.

Come on. She has owned the mistakes that she has made and worked hard to be a good MLA. What else can she do?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I still can't figure out where the mystery hand is coming from.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I still can't figure out where the mystery hand is coming from.

Oh, yeah, that hand that rocked the cradle...

[GGG]

At least she didn't pee in a cup.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Not by itself. The implication is that after Drever's quite serious transgressions, NDP distanced itself from her only "for the show". In reality, she's still being closely coached by NDP damage control people to get her image cleaned up enough to take her back.

And? OMG, someone who was elected as an NDP MLA is working with the party despite her issues at the beginning. I suppose that you just prefer the outright floor crossings we saw a year ago to this skullduggery?

[Bobblehead]

The printer admitted making the error:

“Community Newsletter Publisher, Mind’s Design Studio, apologizes for the MLA message error in the January 2016 issue of the Broadcaster. This was completely an oversight on the design and editing ends. We did not intentionally insert another MLA’s message in lieu of Deborah’s message. Sorry for any confusion this has caused. Again, our sincere apologies,” Bobbie-Jo Bergner wrote, owner of Mind’s Design Studio.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2429813/co...rtunate-error/

The partisan muckraking is making a few people look very petty.

[Kjesse]

Call me petty too, but I think there is something going on here. Consider the language of her own message after the gaffe:

"The holiday message published under my name was not one that I wrote. Neither my staff nor I submitted the newsletter update that ran under my name, nor were we given a proof to approve. All I can assume is that it is a mistake on the publisher’s end. My staff was unable to reach anyone today. On Monday we will be requesting a retraction from the publisher."

This is what I find odd:

-"was not one that I wrote"-- makes me think she didn't write one. Otherwise it would say, "was not the one I wrote"

-"Neither my staff or I submitted the newsletter update..." -- makes me think they didn't submit anything, otherwise they would have said they submitted another one

-"All I can assume is that it is a mistake on the publishers end." -- makes me think, they submitted nothing, based on the above two quotes, so the publisher put something in so she didn't say... nothing.

-"All I can assume" -- she doesn't even know if or what she or her staff submitted, if anything. Lazy, no diligence to say what she did if anything.

-That there no mention of whether she actually wrote anything and submitted it suggests she wrote nothing.

The publisher was paid to do these newsletters, they have an incentive to please the political party hiring them and will take the fall on this. The Drever language was very careful however to not suggest the publisher failed to publish something she wrote.

[PepsiFree]

Please tell me that is satire

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Please tell me that is satire

Post substance and you'll get a response. Do a drive by and get something like this.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Call me petty too, but I think there is something going on here. Consider the language of her own message after the gaffe:

"The holiday message published under my name was not one that I wrote. Neither my staff nor I submitted the newsletter update that ran under my name, nor were we given a proof to approve. All I can assume is that it is a mistake on the publisher’s end. My staff was unable to reach anyone today. On Monday we will be requesting a retraction from the publisher."

This is what I find odd:

-"was not one that I wrote"-- makes me think she didn't write one. Otherwise it would say, "was not the one I wrote"

-"Neither my staff or I submitted the newsletter update..." -- makes me think they didn't submit anything, otherwise they would have said they submitted another one

-"All I can assume is that it is a mistake on the publishers end." -- makes me think, they submitted nothing, based on the above two quotes, so the publisher put something in so she didn't say... nothing.

-"All I can assume" -- she doesn't even know if or what she or her staff submitted, if anything. Lazy, no diligence to say what she did if anything.

-That there no mention of whether she actually wrote anything and submitted it suggests she wrote nothing.

The publisher was paid to do these newsletters, they have an incentive to please the political party hiring them and will take the fall on this. The Drever language was very careful however to not suggest the publisher failed to publish something she wrote.

I think you are reading a little too much into her facebook post.

Within a constituency, there are different publishers that publish the newsletters for each community. Mind's Design (the publisher who admitted to the mistake) would have received the letter from Brandy Payne (the MLA for Acadia who's message showed under Drever's) for some of the communities in her constituency. They would have had that template in their system and it is very likely that they simply mistakenly printed Deborah Drever's name on top.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

I think you are reading a little too much into her facebook post.

Within a constituency, there are multiple publishers that publish the newsletters for each community. Mind's Design would have received the letter from Brandy Payne (the MLA for Acadia who's message showed under Drever's) for some of the communities in her constituency and would have had that template in their system and it is very likely that they simply printed Deborah Drever's name on top.

How is it that you know more than Ms. Drever about what happened? That is specifically the problem. Are you claiming inside knowledge? How did you come up with a response of more detail than she provided? Seriously...?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Post substance and you'll get a response. Do a drive by and get something like this.

Not everyone can create something out of nothing. You 1, Me 0?

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Delgar

How is it that you know more than Ms. Drever about what happened? That is specifically the problem. Are you claiming inside knowledge? How did you come up with a response of more detail than she provided? Seriously...?

I don't know more than Deborah Drever. I have many friends who have either worked with MLAs or currently work with them and have told me what they believe happened.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Call me petty too, but I think there is something going on here. {snip}

Yeah - your post is petty and partisan. That is tinfoil hat worthy.

[ben voyonsdonc]

By the way, a publisher would never, ever, ever put something in for an MLA without having received it from them.

[Minnie]

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

By the way, a publisher would never, ever, ever put something in for an MLA without having received it from them.

Except this one?

And I beg to differ with your absolute statement. There are examples going back many years. Sometimes its staff, sometimes the party. Publishers are as prone to error as anyone else.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Except this one?

And I beg to differ with your absolute statement. Plenty of examples going back decades.

She didn't submit this one - hence why it is a problem.

Can you give me one example of a publisher helping out an MLA or MP by putting out an article or newsletter that didn't come from them? That is insanely dumb for the publisher to do.

[Kjesse]

Actually I'll back off some of my comments, I looked up the publisher. They publish community newsletters where they obtain advertisements from local businesses and then send out a newsletter. All very entrepreneurial and probably a hard business model.

I understood the newsletter was some kind of party-sponsored newsletter based on the news report I read, and that was not correct (unless the NDP has paid the publisher, and I have no knowledge of that, nor any reason to think that happened).

So... I would actually say that Ms. Drever had no reason to submit a story to such newsletter. And her statement appears to back that up.

That all being said, its pretty darned odd that the newsletter publishes another MLA's comments as being Drever's. They can sort that out.

EDIT: And the newest editing of the news reports online include an admission by the publisher that Drever sent nothing.