As our December 6th meeting in Montpelier begins, down the street another meeting will end – the meeting of the House Democrats that will choose their new leadership. For Speaker, of course, the choice is down to two: Mark Larson and Shap Smith, with Smith the likeliest winner. After going back and forth (largely around concerns about his potential vulnerability in the district), I’ve decided to just come right out and say that I’m rooting for Smith.

I share with many folks the concern over whether Larson or Smith have the gravitas and presence to be an effective counter to Douglas. I also note that, as a progressive Dem, Larson is basically with me 100% of the time on issues, while Smith is somewhere in the 80s, percentage-wise. But I think the way Smith’s busted his butt to come from the back of the pack and be on the edge of winning this thing against all expectations (including mine) is a testament to the likelihood that many of us may have underestimated just how determined and focused he can be, and those are the qualities of a leader.

And there’s another plus to a Smith ascendence, one doubled if he’s joined by Floyd Nease in the Majority Leader spot. Smith and Nease are two political figures who are willing to engage with the growing new media in this state. They have, in fact, both participated in discussions on this site. A Smith/Nease combination would mean that we would be listened to, respected, and even acknowledged.

Are they going to agree with us all the time? Of course not. But this is democracy and that’s the way it goes. The important thing is – by accepting (if not exactly embracing) that our voices are part of the conversation, that democracy is enhanced and bettered, and it will stand in stark contrast to the previous Speaker who seemed loathe to acknowledge that we were even here.

Now, I know other front pagers will have different horses in this race, and I invite and encourage those folks to speak up, but I wanted to make sure and put this out there before the final decision is made on Saturday.

(Promoted not because I agree with the content, but because I agree that it’s an important issue. Jack – promoted by Jack McCullough)

It's easy to pile ill will on the Free Press and the corporate MSM, but in my opinion, Jack's “Great Timing, Freeps! as well as Shay Totten's, “Do You Want to Know A Secret?“ are inaccurate and off base. The bad news is that this issue is being watched nationally as we speak and this kind of misinformation shouldn't be passed along as a quick rip-and-read. 

My reasons why below the fold:

Many of us who read the news every day love to hate Gannett-owned Burlington Free Press.  It's easy to do.  It's a real-life example of corporate media controlling local and regional news.  In that frame of mind, however, it's easy to forget that the people who work there are real people, most of whom come to the profession because they love writing, just like we do.  They get paid, but not that well.  And most of all, they have a job to do and rules to follow.

More importantly, what's happening at the Freeps is just the tip of the iceberg in what we can expect to see in America's print newspaper industry.  Before the mortgage crisis, the crumbling of Wall Street and bailout of corporate America, the print newspaper business has been skating on thin ice with the rise of free online news.  Traditional newspapers had no choice but to offer free websites.  Family-owned New York Times tried to charge for op-eds a few years back and had to give up. Online news has created a dramatic downward spiral across the newspaper industry for the last 10 years.  If Congress is considering a bailout for Big Auto, it might be worthwhile to suggest a bailout for print news industry.  The 4th Estate serves the public interest and it, too, is too big to fail. 

There is no honor in finding fault or pleasure in cutbacks in the Burlington office.  We're talking about people feeling the harsh impact of reality facing the newspaper business everywhere.  These are people who help give GMDers and the news reading community information to feed on. Some of them are people who read GMD as part of the news feedback cycle or scoop-finding process.  We have a daily relationship with print newspapers and the businesses behind the news.  

Furthermore, cutbacks at the Free Press are not a Gannett-isolated issue. Vermont-owned dailies are running on thin ice, too.  If you know anything about print media and the negative economic impact newspapers have suffered from free online news — including a paper's own website — then it's pretty easy to guess that things are tough industry wide. It's not in the news, but the future of newspapers may require a whole new model if we want to see good reporting to continue. Morale is low across the nation for print journalists, and in fact, very few can be confident in their own job security whether they talk about it or not. My guess is that like most people, our Vermont journalist community prefers to not think about it at all.

Here are the reasons why “Do You Want to Know a Secret?” and “Great Timing Freeps!” are inaccurate and off base.  No hard feelings about it on my end, but what's been said needs to be corrected.

1.  Deleted.  I made an error here, as per my comment below.

2. “Do You Want to Know a Secret?”also offered information that doesn't bear relevance to the speculation that the Freeps would be spared from cutbacks and “Great Timing Freeps!” quoted the same information, passing on an inaccurate suggestion.  Here's the quote:

In fact, excluding Gannett papers in Guam and tiny Tulare, California, the Free Press ranks in the top five within the company’s Community Newspaper Division in terms of profit margin.

Here’s the skinny: According to the financials posted by Hopkins, the Free Press in the first three quarters of 2007 had ad revenue of $21.3 million and a profit margin of more than 36 percent. That translates into roughly $7.7 million in profit through the third quarter, and excludes the holiday ad spending frenzy reserved for the fourth quarter.

The fact that Burlington Freeps ranks in the top five of Gannett's most profitable Community Newspaper Division doesn't spare the office from layoffs. The profit margin from a small circulation daily doesn't go far to offset huge corporate losses.  There's no Point A to Point B line connecting Burlington's profits to Gannett's downsizing strategy, and no basis for suggesting Freeps may be spared from cutbacks.

3. Both “Great Timing Freeps!” and “Do You Want to Know a Secret?” suggest that Brad Robertson said something he clearly did not.

Robertson told “Fair Game” that he’s not ready to announce “anything that relates to layoffs” at his shop.

“Do You Want to Know a Secret” strongly implied that Robertson's response was suggesting that layoffs shouldn't be expected. This made for the central theme of “Great Timing Freeps!” suggesting that on Wednesday Robertson says, “No layoffs,” but on Thursday we hear, “Free Press lays off 9.” But Robertson didn't make any promises in Totten's Wednesday column.  He's quoted as saying he wasn't ready to announce anything on the subject. He couldn't if he wanted to; layoffs are an internal personnel issue that should be communicated internally prior to making public announcements. Wouldn't you want your organization to work through the process before going public with an official statement if your job might be on the line? Doing otherwise would be unethical and incredibly poor management.

4. The interpretation of corporate financial statements was wrong.

“Do You Want to Know a Secret?” was off base by suggesting that Free Press publisher, Brad Robertson, was trying to censor news when asking him to not disclose inaccurate information. Frankly, I think Robertson was extending a professional courtesy by suggesting Shay steer clear of a blog-posted corporate report. This kind of reporting can go either way:  would it be ethical for the Free Press to publish 7 Days internal financial statements?  I think Pamela and Paula would be calling Robertson pronto while finding and firing the person who leaked their private information.

Regradless, Robertson was correct in the first half of this quote:

Robertson says that, even if the 2007 financials are “authentic,” they do not reflect the Free Press’ local expenses, i.e., “capital/depreciation, loans/debt, taxes, donations, stock dividends, and the list goes on and on. “He is taking a report intended to do one thing and thinking it is telling him something else,” Robertson continued.”

We are one large company with many local outlets with costs expensed locally, regionally, and at corporate. I know of no report that gets him the answer he is saying is the reflection of the local property.”

Robertson was less than genuine when he said he, “knows of no report” that reflects the financials of the local office.  Such reports should be easily at his grasp.  But he's correct in pointing out that a Gannett 2007 financial statement posted in a blog report is not a good source of information to determine the financial status of the local property.  If you think you can find the real scoop, check out the post at Gannet Blog.  It's just a list of 

Shay Totten is one of a handful of Vermont's good investigative reporters and I send praise to him here on GMD and via email on a pretty regular basis.  However, it's reasonable and fair to say that business and finance are Shay's weak areas. We all have weak areas and it's what makes us human.  This is an example of how some of us, despite our best intentions, miss the mark from time to time.  Gannett's financial statements can't be used to determine the finanical status of it's owned properites individually.  

We all do the best we can with the information and time available to us. But the ramifications of what's happening at the Free Press are pretty huge and speculative reporting doesn't benefit anyone, anytime.  Vermont's journalism community is dwindling quickly, and some of the reasons are beyond the control of anyone, including decision makers at Gannett. Even those of us at GMD are suffering a loss today, as we do every day a newspaper takes a hard economic hit.

Today I am not angry about the loss of 9 positions in Burlington. I find this news genuinely sad. We don't feel the loss felt inside the Free Press by those whose positions have been cut, or who have to say goodbye to friends who won't be reporting back tomorrow, or who are wondering when their time will come. When you pick up the Free Press in print form today, imagine for a moment what it might be like if the paper is no longer there.  Same goes for the Times Argus and Rutland Herald. If the print paper isn't there, you can bet the website will be gone, too.

2 days now until our upcoming strategy/brainstorming session (in Montpelier this Saturday, from 1-3 – I’ll post and email a map later today) among new media activists and other “Democratic stakeholders.” Again, if you plan on coming, please RSVP to (jodum at poetworld.net) as this is not a public forum per se – its a working meeting with the goal of brainstorming some specific strategies and moving towards implementing them to whatever extent we feel is manageable.

Moving on to a look at the next agenda item. It’s the biggie:

IV. Getting the left to stop fighting itself (at least long enough to get elected).

This, of course, is the Dem-Prog conundrum. The think that everyone seems to think this meeting is 100% focused on, and will likely take up the lion’s share.

With the size differential, the Legislative part of this problem is less widespread, and as such may be easier to brainstorm solutions and systems to implement those solutions. There will be challenges, though. How to approach conflicts in Burlington as compared to the rest of the state? If we are heading towards a paradigm that says Primaries are good things, is it possible to create localized primaries?

Statewide is obviously a different story – but what is the story? Is it about Democrats working with Progressives, or Democrats dealing with Anthony Pollina specifically? Is the solution a partisan merger – either encouraged or enforced from the grassroots? Is the solution to create – or simulate – a primary, either through IRV, opening up party primary ballots to allow candidates to appear on more than one? A regular runoff? Maybe just good ol’ fashioned organized grassroots and constituency group pressure on one or both parties?

Wherever the discussion goes, there’s no question that it will be informed by tonight’s Democratic/Progressive forum in Burlington, sponsored by 7 Days. A forum which everyone I’ve spoken to is expecting to become a food fight.

Of the four panelists, I suspect Dem Rep. Joey Donovan and Prog City Councilor Jane Knodell will be amenable to an exchange. Where I don’t know City Dem Chair Jake Perkinson, he would seem to be the partisan warrior sort, and Rep. David Zuckerman, I fear, has been looking for a fight.

Clearly I’m a partisan Democrat myself, and as a partisan Democrat, my perspective is not neutral. My concern, though, is that everyone will end up looking very bad. The Dems’ inclination will be to be dismissive and the Progs’ inclination will be to be holier-than-thou, and around we go.

As a Dem, a real test of whether or not there will be a real conversation from the Progressive side will be whether or not Rep. Zuckerman goes into what has been a favored question of his of late. It’s a question he asked multiple times when we were on the radio, and repeated on another blog as well as this one. Although I responded to it in the comments, he has repeated it on the Prog Blog since in his prelude to tonight’s event, so I think he’s committed to it, or chose to disregard the response on this site. It seems like a harmless enough question. Here it is from this site:

What are the key fundamental principles that Democrats (this means elected and serving) fundamentally believe in?  By this, I mean more than the platform.

The fact is, this question is a rhetorical trap. One designed to quickly define you as the right-wingers in a room full of leftists in an unfair – and inaccurate – way. It represents exactly the argument that we have to leave on the table if we can expect not to needlessly come into conflict (and therefore empower the right) in this state.

It is, in my eyes, akin in rhetorical quality to Sean Hannity’s frequent attempt to corner Democrats by asking them flat out if they want to be victorious in Iraq. It’s a question designed to put your opponent in a corner because its a question on your terms, that they can’t answer on those terms – and yet it sounds so simple. My hope – and request – is that Zuckerman choose not to go there. If he does, I would hope that Joey and Jake recognize it for the trap that it is.

Here are the problems:

First: its an explicit demand that Democrats justify themselves to Zuckerman before he will deign to continue the conversation. It is a precondition to negotiations that is, frankly, a little demeaning. If Dems could justify themselves in this way to Zuckerman’s satisfaction after all, he and other Progressives would likely be Dems. Any real discussion should stipulate that conversions are not happening.

Second: It preemptively rejects the answer to the question. The Platform is the Democrats statement of values. By rejecting it outright, he is not only demanding Dems justify themselves to him – he’s demanding they do so on his terms – and its unclear what those terms even are.

Third and biggest: The question compares apples and oranges – to the apple’s advantage (or is that the orange’s?). The Progressives are simply a different organization that the Democrats. The Dems are one lobe of the two-party system – the “left” party. The dynamics of the two party system (which I believe are clearly hardwired) are such that the “left” and the “right” party are in constant flux. That, in a sense, they become institutional battlegrounds for what it means to be a “leftist” or a “rightist” in the country and the state. The question of “what are our values” is the perennial struggle within the party that theoretically finds expression through the platform and ripples out to the political dynamic and culture at large. Structurally, its not a question that you can answer in a soundbite, as its the process of asking that question that defines the party (and another reason why we could really use Progs’ help inside the party, but I digress…)

The Progressives, on the other hand, are both small, and not a part of the two-party system. They can structure themselves with a more traditional nonprofit style hierarchy and can define themselves with nonprofit style mission statements – which the Progressives do and even attempt to enforce among membership under their bylaws (something Democrats could – and would – never do). Now if Progs ever do supplant the Dems, they will find themselves in exactly the same position as the Dems and rapidly become the exact same party, just under a different name. But for now, they have the luxury of playing by a different set of rules entirely.

In other words, Zuckerman’s question could be answered by a soundbite from the Progs, but to be precise, the Dems have to answer more philosophically. Short of that, the answer is the Platform, or at least its abstract, which reads:

The Vermont Democratic Party believes the rights to health care, food, shelter, clean air and water, education, privacy, justice, peace and equality, to organize, and to speak freely are essential to a robust democracy. These rights are not negotiable. When any Vermonter lacks or is denied any of these basic essentials, the fabric of our community is torn and all of us are harmed.

We believe that all citizens have a responsibility to be informed, engaged participants in our democracy. As engaged citizens, we will work toward the establishment of economically and environmentally sustainable communities that regain and maintain the ecological health of our state and contribute to the health of our country and the planet.

We expect elected officials, their staffs and their appointees to govern compassionately, competently, and with fiscal integrity and transparency. We demand that all elected officials fully adhere to their oaths of office and defend the Constitutions of Vermont and of the United States at all times, using all lawful means available to them through their office. Based on the principles of the Vermont and U.S. Constitutions, we stand against torture, bigotry and discrimination, forced childbirth or sterilization, corruption, and the establishment of state-sponsored religion or religious doctrine.

We judge the success of a democratic society by how it treats its most vulnerable members. Therefore, in everything we do — every policy, law, and regulation — we must consider the effects of our actions on the lives and futures of our children and succeeding generations.

…and if he’s preemptively throwing that truthful response out, its simply not a fair or honest question.

So Dave, I’m asking you: don’t go there.

Jake and Joey: If he goes there, its just a rhetorical sucker punch designed to kick your ass. Don’t follow.

But if you must, the quick answer is therefore – “The Platform, and if that’s not good enough for you, well we’re just not going to meet with each others’ personal approval and we have to accept that if we’re going to move on.”

The more precise (but abstract) answer is: “What do we stand for? We are the party of the left in the political system, and we beat the hell out of each other every year to define what the “left” means for our state and for the country – and we could use all the progressive help we can get.”

And everybody – everybody – please remember that simply saying “now I’m not trying to suggest my opponent is a moron” and then going on to suggest your opponent is a moron does not inoculate you. There are no verbal inoculations, and whoever among you decides to try to go that route will come off looking like a grumpy child.

I’m not sure if there’s an opportunity for any good to come of this tonight, given the timing and the circumstances. I’d like to think there is. I just hope it doesn’t make things worse.

This couldn't have happened any better if they'd planned it.

Yesterday Shay Totten's column at Seven Days reported on the profitability of the Burlintgon Free Press for its corporate masters at Gannett: 

In fact, excluding Gannett papers in Guam and tiny Tulare, California, the Free Press ranks in the top five within the company’s Community Newspaper Division in terms of profit margin.

Here’s the skinny: According to the financials posted by Hopkins, the Free Press in the first three quarters of 2007 had ad revenue of $21.3 million and a profit margin of more than 36 percent. That translates into roughly $7.7 million in profit through the third quarter, and excludes the holiday ad spending frenzy reserved for the fourth quarter.

It took some real doing for Shay to get the information, as the people at the Free Press were very tight-lipped about their financial condition, going so far as to tell Shay that they wanted him not to print the financial information he had found. And, on the subject of the recent layoffs, they said:

The axe could begin to fall again this week at some of Gannett’s dailies, but not, apparently, at the Free Press. Robertson told “Fair Game” that he’s not ready to announce “anything that relates to layoffs” at his shop.

 Well, maybe he wasn't “ready” to announce anything earlier this week, but what appears in the pages of the Free Press today?

The Burlington Free Press will lay off nine employees and eliminate five open positions publisher Brad Robertson said today.

Robertson declined to identify the laid-off employees at this time; the work force reductions included newsroom staffers.

 So let's just put this together: Gannett across the country is facing financial hard times. The local Gannett outlet is one of their five most profitable operations. We know that they've already shipped some functions, like customer service, out of state. And still, they cut more staff here in Burlington.

In other words, Vermonters' job losses are boosting the bottom line here and supporting corporate losses in other parts of the country.

Nice job, Freeps.