Oh boy! Hooplah!
For those just tuning in: first Freyne reports that Progressive Rep. Dave Zuckerman sez “He (Peter Shumlin) came up to me at an event in Montpelier…and said we’ve really got to talk about how we’re going to get rid of Jim Douglas, and I think Anthony Pollina should really consider running.””… then I report that Shumlin sez “From his recollection, it was Zuckerman who brought up Pollina….Says Shumlin: 'I have told anyone who will listen that the best candidate, in my judgment is Matt Dunne.' (and Dunne verified Shumlin's encouragement in an unrelated conversation with me a ways back).“… then Stewart Ledbetter on Vermont This Week (in a reference to “dueling blogs”) sez “maybe the story that Shumlin was pushing Anthony Pollina is simply not true”… then Freyne sez “Maybe the Moon is made of green cheese?“… then Freyne goes to Zuckerman who sez “I respect Stewart Ledbetter… but that's irresponsible journalism.”
Ahhh, so many sezzes, so little time!
Truthfully, “irresposnsible journalism” is a whopping big charge. Especially when we're not simply talking about journalism. We're also talking about blogging, gossip and even interpersonal relationships, inasmuch as they relate to who believes whom.
But first of all, let's talk about journalism.
Let me start by agreeing with commenters at Freyne's site. Zuckerman is a totally decent guy, and I can't possibly believe that he's lying. And although I was called “naive” for believing Shumlin, I've known the guy (not well, granted, but nevertheless…) for years, and he's never lied to me, or said anything to me that I have reason in retrospect to consider may have been a lie. Does that make me “naive,” as a commenter suggested? Who knows, but I'd rather be naive than be an asshole, and I'd have to be an asshole to arbitrarily doubt his word to me at this point.
This is where we get to the difference between hubbub and journalism, and why “he said-he said” situations like this are dangerous to report on, especially when you only have in hand one of the “he's” doing the “saying” and no independent corroboration. IMO, Freyne was definitely on shaky ground publishing this to begin with, especially when you consider we're talking about two different people's reminiscences of brief conversations from months ago. It's as likely a scenario as any that they both honestly and earnestly remember the conversations differently.
(For my part, all I can say is what I said already – that Shumlin's “retort” to me was consistent with what I've heard from him in the past, and consistent with what I'd heard from Matt Dunne… kneejerk Shumlin-bashing should not be a replacement for objective consideration of the merits and the foundations of a tiff like this).
But Freyne is not simply a journalist, he is also a blogger. And those are very different animals, playing by different rules. Bloggers can go up with rumor or hubbub, and often do. Blogs – “web logs” – are simply online diaries meant to spur discussion – and rumors are obviously a valid point of discussion for online communities of interest. You throw it out there and let the readers hash out the viability and credibility, which is the process that has – in fact – been in play between Freyne's site, this one, and the various comments at both, and what the “duel” which-is-not-a-duel is a glimpse into the process of.
But then, Freyne's report played out in his print column, rather than his blog. Does that change the implications?
Maybe, but I doubt it. After all, does anybody doubt that Freyne is becoming the human twilight zone between blogs and journalism? That role makes his media somewhat interchangable.
Either way, the guy's in an awkward spot as Vermont's official journalist-columnist-blogger hybrid, but he seems to generally handle it well, so I won't take him to task.
But there's one person I will take to task a bit, and that's Rep. Zuckerman. His suggesting Ledbetter was practicing “irresponsible journalism” was, I think… well… irresponsible.
Ledbetter is not a blogger, or a blogger-journalist hybrid, he is simply a journalist, pure and simple. When confronted with a contradiction like this, it is his job – his responsibilty even – to address it as dispassionately and objectively as he can- and that means laying all the possibilities out there. When two people say contradictory things, its always an objective possibility that one may not be right (especially when one of the suggestions seems, on its face, to defy the journalist's own experience or the prevailing wisdom).
A political officeholder making such an inflammatory charge to a journalist simply for asking one of the obvious questions for the purposes of a discussion among journalists could have a chilling effect on the practice of his 1st amendment responsibilities as a member of the press.
So, I've given buddies of Rep. Zuckerman ammunition to be mad at me if they really want to be, but the truth is, I think the “irresponsible journalism” line was just an off-the-cuff comment that wasn't meant the way someone like me might be afraid it could be. To repeat – as I already said Zuckerman seems like a totally straight shooter.
Honestly, I think we just have a cascading of off-the-cuff comments and fuzzy recollections of a months old exchange. Enough for some entertaining back and forth, but I think the story played out a while ago.