So you all know the drill from the national blogosphere (call it the “Markos Model”). This is where the blogger takes the backhanded insult from the “mainstream media” person (in this case, an actual reporter, rather than a columnist, making it all the stranger), and returns it in spades, magnified by a factor of 10. The commenters pile on, and the discussion turns to a new media vs. traditional media discussion.
But not this time, and I’ll explain why in a moment.
First let’s take care of the obligatory preliminaries. When asked by a commenter (and not just any commenter, a commenter recently banned from GMD for crossing what is likely the only complete taboo in this site – going after somebody by using their employer as a weapon against them – and long time readers will remember the ugly history of that sort of craven attack at this site) about the lack of press coverage of our little activist meeting this week (a lack that I was grateful for at the time, as I was concerned about people speaking freely, but there was no way we could’ve – or would’ve – closed anyone out), Free Press reporter Terri Hallenbeck responded:
No, we didn’t go to the “activist meeting” Saturday. Didn’t inquire whether we would have been allowed. From Odum’s write-up it sounds like there were heated debates but he’s not going to tell us the nature of them. Otherwise, it sounded like they talked about how to put enforcers into place. Henchmen, if you will. In other words, the real worry is about keeping people in line while also making “a more inviting electoral environment for potential candidates.” Interesting contrast.
Okay: as to “heated debates” that I’m “not going to tell us about,” this is apparently concluded from this single phrase in a nearly 1200 word diary:
There were plenty of moments of disagreement – and even a moment where it got slightly heated
To respond:
- “Heated debates” from a “moment where it got slightly heated.” It’s a reach, but whatever. If Ms. Hallenbeck or anyone cared to know about that “moment,” asking might’ve been prudent. It was when a GMD front pager and a participant got a bit heated in discussing the Zuckerman-Pearson-Ram race for about, oh, 30 seconds. I don’t recall the particulars. I understand they exchanged apologies after the meeting. I could have gone into detail when I wrote the diary, but the thing was already 1200 words and that seemed a bit tertiary, somehow.
- As far as “Otherwise, it sounded like they talked about how to put enforcers into place. Henchmen, if you will.” So Hallenbeck’s message here is that: a) I reported “heated debates” but refused to divulge details, and that b) besides that, I just talked about “henchmen”.
Again, just so i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed, here, I never used the word “enforcers” at all. She is apparently reacting to this paragraph:
3. Create an entity or network of entities that act as enforcement. If the legislative package passes, it will be vetoed, and that veto will need to be overridden – and that means some “wrath of god” stuff which can be brought to bear against wavering override votes. If, as we build relationships and create discussions, agreements and understandings manifest – perhaps political “non-aggression treaties – that big stick will need to be at the ready. We will be looking at formalizing that capacity, either through the creation of a non-partisan entity, or an expanded, multipartisan and diverse new media structure that can work in concert on this agenda.
Along with the “heated debates” phrase, that, from Hallenbeck’s POV, comprises the totality of my “report.” All told, that’s about 120 words. In actuality, there were 1157 words in the diary.
If it really must be said, no, I wasn’t trying to suggest a team of “henchman” (a la the old Batman series?) be hired to roam the statehouse. I was talking about an entity or network of entities (like, maybe blogs?) that could mobilize citizen, grassroots activism when our interests were on the line and looking threatened on the one hand, or to complain a lot and write a lot of letters if a P-D non-aggression pact (should one arise) is looking unilaterally compromised. A rapid response activist network. Hardly re-inventing the wheel, here. I gotta give props, though – “Henchman” is certainly an entertainingly unique spin. When possible, I tried to use some of the words that participants used in the meeting so they could more clearly hear themselves, and perhaps this is a lesson that, given the overt hostility of a reporter or two, I should be less forthright in my accounting of these things. Lesson learned.
- As to the last point, if Hallenbeck seriously wants to imply that creating a network to employ constiuent pressure towards controversial goals is inconsistent with creating an environment that supports one’s candidates, I’m not sure how to respond in a way that doesn’t come off rather snarky or petty myself. I guess I’d suggest she take it up with VLCV, Vermont NEA, the Vermont AFL-CIO, or for that matter the Democratic, Republican and Progressive Parties, as they’ve been playing that game for years. I can only assume that, as a political reporter, she already knows that, but I suppose, since the question has been called here, it must be said.
So there: acknowledged, refuted. Formalities complete. Now this is the part where we all talk about the viciously low regard blogs are held in by the “traditional media” and how we are all natural enemies.
Except we shouldn’t go there, because that’s not the case – at least not in Vermont. Not by a long shot. After the flip, I’ll discuss why I think this should be considered an isolated instance from someone who has particularized contempt for this site (and likely this blogger), and does not reflect the blog-reporter relationship as a whole, and how that relationship may not be what you expect from looking at the national sites…
A funny thing happened in the last few years. The Vermont political press corps has gone into a sort of crisis. Between key figures being drafted into Administration or other political jobs, another key member losing his job, and the financial crisis hitting the traditional media (now coupled by a global economic meltdown), their ranks have become thinned – so thinned, that there simply aren’t enough bodies on the ground to cover everything coverable anymore.
But the result is that whatever groupthink has been in play in the past among this group has been largely broken up. Oh sure, there’s still limiting “conventional wisdom” informing the profession – one only has to tune into a few minutes of Vermont This Week to see it in action, but the press corps – with its many new faces – is much closer to being a team of equals now. And a team of equals equates to a team of individuals, which is a very good thing.
And it shows in the quality. You’ve heard me repeatedly sing the praises of the VPR team (reporters like Sneyd, Dillon, Zind and the like), as well as speak highly of Barlow, Porter – and yes, even Hallenbeck – on numerous occasions. I tried to get reporter-specific newsfeeds running on the sidebar at one point to promote some of these folks and get GMDers to think more in terms of product coming from specific agents, rather than publications (and to promote the ones I thought did great work), but I couldn’t get it to work.
Of course, you’ve also seen me give ’em hell. The social psychological function being filled by netroots sites like this one nationally and locally is clear: we are the political, community, independent psychic clearinghouse of last resort – and that includes talking honestly about the media in all its forms. Are we right when we have an issue? Well – we think we are, and amateur, “hobbyist” sites like this are clearly read and internalized by the professionals. I wouldn’t say we “watch the watchmen,” but we do talk about them a lot.
So what is Hallenbeck on about? It did reach my ears that she was mightily pissed off after this piece way back. It’s a criticism I stand by and I think was fair. After the diary was posted, that bad habit seemed to stop. Did it have an effect? Who knows. It’s beside the point, actually. But there was no “feud” intended, as I have praised her work when I thought it praiseworthy (and lord knows we link to vtbuzz aplenty – it’s even got a permanent sidebar link in the blogroll). I only met her once, waiting in line at the SoS office for campaign finance filings. I identified myself and told her I thought her recent live blogging experiments were fantastic, that I hope she’d ignore the critics on her own site, and that I hoped other press folks would follow her lead. Other than that, I think I asked her if she knew who someone else in the room was. It seemed pleasant enough.
One of the things for reporters to remember, though, is that this is – to some extent – a “media geek site,” and like all geek sites, we act as reviewers a lot.
And she’s hardly the only one I’ve had critical words for (speaking only for myself, here). I rip into Sneyd here. I go after Barlow here. And regular readers will know that these are two of my favorite reporters in the state. And yet, neither of them are putting their reporters’ hats on and making such bizarrely contemptuous and clearly distorted statements in public about this site. In fact, I feel like I get on rather well with both of them.
The point again, is that we’re graced not to have a traditional media groupthink in play. Vermont is small, it functions person-to-person, and that dynamic plays out even in what we often think of as an impenetrable fourth estate. The cast of characters is a small one, but they react as individuals. We get along fine-to-great with Sneyd, Zind, Dillon, Barlow. Porter tolerates us, at any rate, even though I think he’s either rolling his eyes or grumbling half the time (fair enough). Ledbetter seems to kinda dig the blogs. Sue Allen and Mark Johnson watch us, but get mightily pissed off (Johnson got very angry when he felt I unfairly attacked him. He brought it to my attention, I agreed and publicly apologized as I’ve had to do on occasion, but it didn’t seem to help much). Whatsisname the Herald editor pretends we don’t exist, while the Reformer editor (someone else I’ve beat up) enjoys the site.
And Hallenbeck dislikes us so much, it distorts her journalistic eye. Well, what are ya gonna do? I guess it happens.
But her comment should not be taken as a condemnatory statement from the collective voice of the traditional media to Vermont bloggery assembled. It is only a single axe grinding on its own terms.
It’s just going to be an inevitable byproduct of what happens here – but a nasty relationship with all traditional media practitioners need not be.
Loading ...