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.

Three years of Rational Resistance

I don't always write as much as I intend to, but I just thought I'd notice (the first time I've actually noticed the anniversary before it happened) that today marks three years of writing Rational Resistance.

Follow the link for some “greatest hits”.

Today is the first day of the coldest ninety days of  the year .This past Sunday  icy snow covered parts of the interstate around Burlington and it has raised some questions about the 10% limit on salt and 25% limit on sand imposed on state road crews in an austerity measure .Officials say the bad road conditions in this last storm were not a result of reductions,but temperature.Limiting salt and sand is one,,just one of the slashing cuts that will directly impact all Vermont as Governor Douglas tightens our belt for us .

The Agency of Transportation has a $21 million budget deficit because of declining revenues and rising costs. Officials have outlined a number of cuts to close the gap, including a 10 percent reduction in salt use and a 25 percent reduction in sand.

John Zircconi, spokesman for AOT, said decisions will be made on a local level about how much salt and sand to use. Crews have not been issued edicts from Montpelier, he said. “We have asked them to use their good judgment,” he said. “It’s not like we’re putting 10 percent less salt in the trucks.”

I am deeply puzzled by spokesman John Zicconi’s comment that it isn’t as if we are putting 10% less salt in the trucks .Where aren’t they putting the 10% then ?

For the budget cutting to work they must not be putting it somewhere ?

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

“We serve the sitting president and will continue to do so until President-elect Obama takes office,” said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.

(Confessions throw Gitmo 9/11 trials into confusion, Times Argus, 12/09/08)

Uh … Commander? Care to re-read your oath of office? You serve the Constitution of the United States of America and swear to obey the lawful orders of your superiors.

The bill puts a government overseer named by Bush – a kind of “car czar” – in charge of setting guidelines for an industrywide overhaul, with the power to revoke the loans if the carmakers weren’t taking sufficient steps to reinvent themselves.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the restructuring would require tough concessions from management, labor, creditors and others.

“We call this the barbershop. Everybody’s getting a haircut here,” Pelosi said.

(Congress sends White House $15B aid proposal, Times Argus, 12/09/08)

Nice … Wall Street gets the money (without strings) and the automakers get a freakin’ haircut! Where the hell were all these grandiose demands a couple months ago Pelosi and Reid and Obama????

I won’t say the meeting on the 6th was a revolutionary success, but a success it most definitely was. About 30 people – a combination of self-identifying Democrats as well as “Democratic stakeholders” (those who may not consider themselves Dems, but feel a stake in having a functional, effective Democratic Party in the state) gathered in Montpelier to consider 3 things: reforming or improving the functioning of the Party’s election machine, how to avoid the candidate vacuum (or the “exciting” candidate vacuum) at  the top of the ticket from this past cycle, and – the big one – how to approach the damage done by the divide amongst the left in the state.

There was a good range of faces who made it. Folks from within the Democratic Party, such as County Chairs and the State Vice Chair, elected officials, campaign professionals, and many people outside of such insider circles, from labor ambassador Ralph Montefusco to environmentalist Bill McKibben.

And of course, names from the burgeoning Vermont netroots were throughout – including some completely new to this sort of political dynamic.

The number was ideal. Any bigger and such a roundtable wouldn’t have been manageable, any fewer and it might not have been meaningful. The challenge was to make the whole process more than simply a gripe session, and more than the perennial conversations that are so similar, but which lead nowhere.

By the end, most felt that the ball had been moved just a bit – which is enough to follow up with more concrete action. After the flip, I’ll review the directions the group intends to pursue, and some of the goals that are now in play.

There were plenty of moments of disagreement – and even a moment where it got slightly heated – but overall, there were far more moments of agreement, and a few key points emerged. The conversations about the Party and its “Coordinated Campaign” were grounded in the reality that the Democratic Party proper has certain hardwired limitations, limiting how much the left in this state can reasonably expect to depend on it, but that this cycle there was serious room for improvement.

Along those lines, there was a consensus that we need to take affirmative steps to change the environment for potential candidates for office (Governor and Lt. Governor especially, but not exclusively). We need to create an environment where candidates can feel welcome and supported to enter, while being able at times to apply pressure as well.

Perhaps the most nuanced conversation was a discussion of the role of primaries. It was a bit of a surprise to me to find a universal sense that primaries could be a good thing that enhances the democratic process as well as the winning candidate’s odds in the general election. The group did have a sense that there was a bit of a curve in play – that too large or scattered a primary could crate problems.

But there was also the consensus that the primary date is simply too late in the election calendar to make it a clean or easy dynamic.

As the Prog v. Dem thing goes, there were mixed views as to whether some sort of partisan fusion was practical or even possible, but there was a general agreement that such a merger was not likely to happen this cycle regardless. There was a desire, then, to push for processes and procedures that structurally minimize the opportunity for such conflicts, as well as to create or encourage some sort of individual entity or network that could have enough muscle to play heavy if candidates work around these rules or needlessly pick fights. Exactly what constitutes such transgressions is not entirely clear yet, as there was a division between those who felt that district or office-level “non aggression pacts” were valid or not.

None of this was to discourage the idea of communicating, or negotiating detentes between Dems and Progs, but placing it in a realistic context. There remains the hope that pushing for election reforms in the Legislature could provide such opportunities, as Progressives and Democrats would be needed to overturn expected gubernatorial vetoes.

All told, the group decided to move forward quickly in the following areas:

1. Enhance Coordinated Campaign transparency – particularly during key organizational periods to prevent problems at the peak of election season. Among the activist Democrat crowd, there was an acknowledgment that, while many of the frustrations around the Democratic Coordinated Campaign are endemic, this was an especially frustrating year, and it wasn’t always easy to tell how much of that frustration was preventable. The frustrations extended into relationships with constituency groups, such as labor as well. The group committed to focusing on engaging with the Coordinated Campaign as it comes together and use the tools available to us to maximize transparency, enhance lines of communication, and to bring new faces into the process starting immediately.

2. Election reform legislation. Of the options discussed, the group decided to make an organized, affirmative push for a package of changes to Vermont elections. That package includes:

• Instant Runoff Voting
• Moving back the Primary Date to June or July
• A “Sore Loser Law,” preventing candidates who lose a primary election from coming back later in the year to run in the general election.

These changes will encourage healthy primaries, and minimize potential spoiler effects.

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.

Such an entity could also serve the function of either explicitly collecting financial support for whoever is the final candidate for governor, or identifying financial supporters, being yet another way to make a more inviting electoral environment for potential candidates, as the previous two action items will hopefully do as well.

In addition, there was a lack of consensus on the broad question of issues. Many feel that we should move the Democratic Party and the state firmly into progressive (li’l p) territory. Others felt that we needed to make a special effort to identify the Obama/Leahy/Sanders/Douglas voters and bring them over, likely leading us towards the center. While “populism” was an (ahem) popular term, it was not entirely clear if everyone attached the same meaning to it.

For my part (and I’m not sure if many folks agreed with me), I felt comfortable that the organic process of issue development that has been maturing gradually in sites like this has been working for us, and perhaps we don’t need to try and get ahead of it.

Without a clear sense of what a Vermont netroots platform might look like, there was a desire to look at the demographics of the mixed-vote set and return to the discussion. There was broad consensus that its important to know where the voters are on their own terms which should further inform our collective approach.

So the ball was moved, if only a bit, but the good news is that the follow up has already begun on the Legislative front, and the other areas will follow soon. TO all those who participated – thank you so very much, and I will put together a listserv over the next couple days so we can keep in touch. That will also further enable the “next steps” conversation to happen – in particular, whether we should be looking first towards another group meeting, or whether its time to divide up into groups of interests, get cracking, and keep each other apprised of progress.

For those of you who could not make it but would like to be involved (assuming these approaches sound agreeable to you), please email me at jodum atpoetworld-dot-net. Obviously I – and all of us – are doing this in our spare time, as there are jobs, families and holidays in the picture, but this is happening and you will hear from us if you want to get involved.

Thanks for everyone’s interest on this, and I enthusiastically open the floor for additions, subtractions, suggestions, comments, or corrections of any inaccurate representations of the meeting content, glaring omissions or other screw-ups.

….E&P website  has a report on the findings from the Committee to Protect Journalists annual report.  Repressive governments continue to fear internet news reporters and their easily available audience.Internet reporting may be becoming as mighty or at least as feared by tyrants as the print press once was. Efforts to control and censor access online will only continue as people look more to the web for the news that’s fit. Ironic that as newspaper chains and even TV news corporations cut back coverage and costs the need for news at home and worldwide remains steady or grows.The manner that people access the media has evolved quickly and that evolution is unfortunately evidenced by the level of threat some governments feel from internet new reporters. The United States is included in the CPJ list of countries holding journalists. Although not internet reporters the US has detained journalists in Iraq, and is currently holding a Reuters photographer with out charge or due process.

Worldwide, online journalists are jailed more often today than journalists working in any other medium, according to findings released Thursday by the Committee to Protect Journalists.In its annual census of imprisoned journalists, the CPJ found that 45% of all media workers jailed worldwide are bloggers, Web-based reporters, or online editors. This group represents the largest professional category for the first time in CPJ’s annual survey.

 The increase in online journalists in jail correlates with a rise in the imprisonment of freelance journalists, according to CPJ. Its annual survey found 45 of the journalists counted to be freelancers, and most of them work online. This number has increased more than 40% in the last two years.

Annual Prison Census: Journalists in Prison as of December 2008

http://www.editorandpublisher….

 

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

There was an interesting juxtaposition in the articles by Paul Cillo and Governor Douglas in Sunday’s Times-Argus.  We have Cillo outlining a balanced approach to solve what he characterizes as a revenue problem.  His approach is to temporarily increase taxes on those that can afford it, tap the rainy day fund, and make some targeted spending cuts.

In contrast we have Governor Douglas’ article.  Here all that exists is the need to cut state spending.  He puts this forward at a time when so many have to rely on the state both for their jobs and essential services.  

But the most interesting juxtaposition was between Jim Douglas and Jim Douglas.  More below the fold.

Our governor changes hats with a deftness that rivals a follow-the-bean huckster when he heads to Washington.  Here it is fine to ask the essentially bankrupt federal government to borrow oodles of money to send to Vermont so we don’t have to do any of the things that Cillo is suggesting.

But them is us.  We, the people, have assumed somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 trillion dollars in new federal bailouts and guarantees in just the past few months.  Vermont’s share of these new commitments, based simply on population, is about $16 billion (about $27,000 per person)!  But, gasp, we have about a $100 million shortfall in revenues.  According to Douglas, we can’t solve this problem in the true Yankee fashion that Cillo describes and that Republican Governor Snelling implemented when he was governor, we need to have the feds borrow the money from us for us and cut back spending.

When hit with calamity you can either crawl under a rock and pull back all your assets or you can decide to use them and try to prevail.  We need our critical state programs and the state workers that make them happen to win this fight.  

Let’s hope the legislature follows Cillo’s model.

From the email that went out from State Democratic Chair Ian Carleton to the State Committee regarding the VDP’s Executive Director search (emphasis added):

This year’s search committee will include the following individuals:  

1. Judy Bevans

2. Chuck Ross

3. Linda Weiss

4. Dick Marek

5. Carolyn Dwyer

6. Spence Putnam

7. Mary Sullivan

8. Jon Copans

9. Ian Carleton

I think this group exhibits an excellent cross section of all aspects of our party.

Oy. I think he’s not kidding.

Let’s see, of 9 names, all but one are on the state Executive Committee or have been on in the past, while the remaining person is a recent ED.

Geez. I don’t know what’s worse, the idea that this could be an “excellent cross section” of the Democratic Party, or that Carleton thinks it is.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about Tom Brokaw’s book “The Greatest Generation,” that classic about our parents and their incredible sacrifices during World War II. What I’ve been thinking about actually is this: What book will our kids write about us? “The Greediest Generation?” “The Complacent Generation?” Or maybe: “The Subprime Generation: How My Parents Bailed Themselves Out for Their Excesses by Charging It All on My Visa Card.”