Well, the returns are in for the mid-August campaign finance reports*, and the race for Governor is — even more than before — a settled issue. Peter Shumlin’s gonna whomp Randy Brock.

*Covering July 16-August 15.

The official reporting form has a summary page including total donations and expenditures, but it does not have a line for “total cash on hand.”

So Peter Shumlin’s campaign added a cover sheet to its report, just so nobody missed the big news. Which was right in the middle of the page, off by itself, in bold print:

Cash on Hand: $769,026.61

Holy bleepin’ shit. That’s more cash on hand than all the other statewide (non-federal) candidates COMBINED. That’s three times as much cash on hand as Shumlin’s opponent, Randy Brock.

That completely unneccessary cover sheet: just a subtle crotch-grab by the Shumlin team. Might as well have put a banner across the page: GIVE IT UP, RANDY.

Other top headlines from today’s filings: Randy Brock’s fundraising falters. TJ Donovan outraises — and outspends — Bill Sorrell. Doug Hoffer and Wendy Wilton pick up the pace, but still trail their respective opponents. And, as reported earlier, meager reports from Jack McMullen and Cass Gekas. (I didn’t bother getting reports for Jim Condos, who doesn’t have a Republican opponent, or for US House or Senate.)

Now, the rest of the story…  

Shumlin trounces Brock.  Peter Shumlin raised $160,000 in the past month, for a campaign total of $836,000. When you add in a 2010 surplus of $26,000, you get Shumlin’s extremely impressive cash-on-hand total.

It also helps that Shumlin is spending a lot less money than Brock. He’s reported campaign expenditures of $93,000 so far, including $16,000 in the past month.

Brock raised only $55,000 in the past month — Pundit Laureate Eric Davis had opined that Brock had to raise at least $100,000 to stay competitive — and spent $66,000. (Darcie Johnston’s making a very good living off the dying carcass of Brock for Governor; she got two checks for $8,000 apiece in the last month, to add to the $48,000 she “earned” before July 16. Brock also wrots lots of hefty checks to his out-of-state consultants.)

Looking at the Brock campaign overall, it’s spent $348,000 and raised $581,000 — but that figure includes $300,000 in loans from Brock to his own campaign. In other words, if it wasn’t for the loans, his campaign would be $70,000 in the hole. He didn’t make any additional loans in the past month; perhaps even he can see the writing on the wall.

TJ outdoes Sorrell. In the past month, Attorney General Bill Sorrell raised $22,000, for a total of $105,000. Challenger TJ Donovan raised $35,000 this time, for a total of $164,000. Donovan’s also outspending Sorrell by quite a bit; $71,000 this period and $111,000 so far, compared to Sorrell’s $20,000 this period and $58,000 overall. In terms of cash on hand, Donovan has a little more than Sorrell, roughly %53,000 to $47,000.

The spending totals reflect a challenger who’s mounted a serious effort to take down the incumbent, and an incumbent who might be a bit… shall we say, comfortable? Complacent? Sorrell’s doing okay in fundraising, but he only spent $20,000 in a month with the primary less than two weeks away. That doesn’t exactly seem like an all-out effort.

As reported earlier, Republican AG candidate Jack McMullen had another dismal haul, taking in less than $20,000 — virtually all of it in big checks from a handful of out-of-state donors. He raised less than $300 within Vermont. (Not counting a personal loan of $3500.)

Illuzzi outraises Hoffer. Technically, Republican Auditor candidate Vince Illuzzi has yet to file his August 15 report; he couldn’t get to the Secretary of State’s office on time, and instead e-mailed it in. To be official, it must be delivered in person. But here’s what the unofficial version says: $19,000 in fundraising in this period, bringing the total to $51,000. Expenditures of $76,000, and total spending of $10,000.

Dem/Prog Doug Hoffer is making slow progress, reporting fundraising of $17,000 this time and a campaign total of $27,000. He’s spent a total of $8,400. And he’s loaned his own campaign $10,000. (Illuzzi had previously loaned his campaign $25,000.) So, Hoffer trails Illuzzi in the money race — but at least he remains in Vince’s rear-view mirror.

Which is more than can be said for Wendy Wilton’s effort to unseat Beth Pearce. Republican Wilton took in $17,000 this period, giving her a grand total of $33,000 in donations. She spent $8,000 in the past month, and $13,000 in the campaign to date.

Pearce raised less than Wilton this time around — her total was $12,000 — but she continues to hold a commanding lead in campaign cash. Pearce has raised a total of $95,000. She’s spent $50,000 so far, but still has a substantial edge in cash on hand. Also, looking at Pearce’s donor list, most of her contributions were in the $100-500 range, and virtually none of her donors has reached the $2,000 individual maximum — meaning she has lots of room to raise more money if she needs to.

Finally, as I reported earlier, Phil Scott is way ahead of Cass Gekas in the money race. Scott raised $25,000 in the past month for a campaign total of $52,000, while Gekas raised only about $7,500 this period for a meager total of $13,000.

To be fair, Gekas does have a big kickoff event this week. And she told the Vermont Press Bureau that she’s received pledges worth an additional $27,000. Still, she remains a badly underfunded candidate in a race against a very popular incumbent. Maybe Shumlin can let her dig around in his sofa cushions for spare change.

That’s about it from me. Additional comments are welcome below.  

On this deadline for campaign finance reports, I swung by the Secretary of State’s office around 1:30 to pick up any filings that had been turned in before the last minute.

The answer: not very many, and none of the biggies. No gubernatorial candidates, nothing from the two Dems running for AG. Tune in later today for an update. Here’s what I’ve got so far…

No good news for Jack “Six Teats” McMullen, the two-time loser who’s the Republican candidate for AG. After raising nothing through July 15, he managed to pull in $19,000 in the past month. Virtually all of it was in large donations, and all of those were from out of state. Yep, he may have lived in Vermont for a while now, but he’s still a political carpetbagger; no Vermonters are giving his campaign any money. He lists a total of 13 donors; there were seven max gifts of $2,000, and four more of $1,000. He reported a total of $220 in “donations of $100 or less.”

Now, there’s a broad-based candidacy.

If that’s not sad enough, McMullen also managed to spend nearly $10,000 in the past month, blowing more than half of his campaign kitty at a time when the Freeploid characterizes him as “waiting in the wings” for the result of the August 28 Democratic primary. He’s burning through a lot of cash for a candidate who’s just waiting around.

We can all have a good cackle about that. But here’s something that’s got me upset: Democratic Lt-Gov candidate Cassandra Gekas remains drastically underfunded.  

In the past month, Gekas raised a paltry $7,500 and spent over $6,000, leaving her very little money on hand. Her total fundraising to date is only $13,000. That’s entirely inadequate to take on incumbent Republican Phil Scott.

(He raised a solid $25,000 this time around, for a grand total of $52,000 overall. Minus expenditures, he still has over $30,000 on hand.)

As you may remember, Gekas is a first-time candidate who was reportedly recruited by Governor Shumlin. If so, I have to say that the Governor and the Party have completely failed to provide any tangible support for her candidacy. It’s looking like she’s nothing more than a sacrificial lamb — a placeholder, so the Dems could avoid the embarrassment of an empty slot on their ticket. I hope she at least gets a good job in the Administration after she loses in November.

If that seems harsh, well, the Dems can tell me how I’m wrong. Or better yet, show me — by pouring some resources into the Gekas campaign, and giving her at least a fighting chance.  

I realize that she has yet to hold her “campaign kickoff” — that’s happening tomorrow in Burlington — but it’s awfully late in the game for someone who faces a difficult, uphill struggle against the most popular Republican in the state.

The only other campaign report I have so far is from Democratic Treasurer Beth Pearce. She raised $11,540 in the past month, for an overall total of $95,000. The vast majority of her donations were between $100 and $500, and virtually all of her donors have substantial room for additional gifts under the individual limit of $2,000.

Which I’m sure they will provide, if it becomes necessary. Her Republican opponent, Wendy Wilton, reported a very low total in mid-July; as of 1:30, she had yet to submit her mid-August report.  

Well, as I read this little number about an upcoming fundraiser in Woodstock featuring US Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-Teaville), I was all set to call a penalty on the Vermont Democratic Party: Five yards, excessive complaining.

But then I read on, and realized that once again, the Dems had once again been out-excessed by VTGOP chair Jack Lindley. Five yards, excessive complaining, plus fifteen yards, repeating a discredited lie.

Let’s start with the Dems, who complained that Ayotte is just too extreme to be allowed into our fair state. C’mon, now. I could see this sort of complaining about Paul LePage and Allen West, who are radical conservatives and also complete a$$holes. Ayotte’s just not in their league.  

But then comes Jack Lindley’s counter-offensive, which begins by accusing Democrats of “swinging for the gutter,” a mixed metaphor if ever I heard one. And then he repeats his howler, discredited by yours truly, that “his party made no such comments when President Obama visited Vermont in March.”

Oh yeah, Jack? I refer you (once again) to your own party website, where you greeted Obama’s visit with the following uncivil comments:  

“It’s a huge deal,” Vermont Democratic Party Chairman Jake Perkinson, said of the president’s visit.

“Yes, it’s a huge deal,” said Vermont GOP Chair Jack Lindley. “It’s a huge deal for Vermont taxpayers, who are still reeling from the cost of the worst flooding in the past 100 years; Vermonters who are still reeling from the cost of Obamacare and the skyrocketing cost of gasoline and heating oil. And for Vermonters who are also going to be faced with a projected 18% increase in the cost of health care under the Governor’s plan for the health care exchange and an additional rate increase in their electric bill from the Governor’s proposed renewable energy bill.”

Said Lindley, “I had hoped the President would take time to meet some of those suffering as a result of his policies. Unfortunately, he’ll be spending most of his time raising money. And according to WCAX, it appears he’ll be sticking Vermont taxpayers with the tab for state and local police and traffic detail. WCAX reports that ‘police officers are expected to be stationed at every intersection along the route – a special detail that’s going to require dozens of officers from surrounding towns.’ And South Burlington Police Chief Trevor Whipple says he expects the cost to be ‘community borne.’ ”

“The President says he expects to raise and spend one billion on his reelection campaign,” said Lindley. “The least he could do is reimburse Vermont’s taxpayers for the cost of his fundraising visit, rather than ask the people of cash strapped Vermont to subsidize the cost of his campaign. Let us hope that our esteemed Governor, who is still having trouble balancing the budget, will see fit to speak up on behalf of Vermont’s taxpayers and ask the President for reimbursement.”

Yeah, I don’t think Jack Lindley should be lecturing anyone about civility. (And, as I pointed out previously, the bit about Obama saying he will raise a billion bucks? Fox News fabrication. Obama never said it.) He certainly shouldn’t be telling lies that can be easily discredited by visiting his own party’s website.

(Maybe this time, some enterprising reporter will take the time to do so, and call Lindley on his bullshit.)

In the future, Jack, just STFU about civility to visiting politicos. You’re making a fool of yourself.  

Hot off the wire:

A pastor from Virginia was convicted Tuesday of helping a woman flee the country three years ago, when she was on the brink of having to turn custody of her young daughter over to the woman who was once her partner in a Vermont civil union.

…[Kenneth] Miller, 46, of Stuarts Draft, Va., was charged with aiding in international kidnapping for helping Lisa Miller and her daughter, Isabella, leave the country in September 2009, a month after a judge indicated he would turn custody of the girl over to Janet Jenkins, of Fair Haven, Vt., if she continued to defy a series of visitation orders.

Sentencing will happen later, and Miller is free until then. Also today, Jenkins filed a civil suit against Kenneth Miller, Lisa Miller (no relation) and a Virginia man who allegedly aided in her escape.

So, a measure of justice is done. Unfortunately, Lisa Miller and Isabella are still at large — believed to be in Nicaragua, which is not a signer of an international treaty on child abductions. Jenkins will continue to be robbed of her relationship with her daughter.

The Rev., I’m sure, would call it the Christian thing to do.  

The all-in-color-for-a-buck Burlington Free Press has devoted a fair bit of its Incredible Shrinking Newshole to the Democratic primary for AG, as indeed it must. And so, as they always do, the paper’s editors decided they had to provide a bit of coverage to the other guy — you know, the Republican.

Er, that would be businessman, entrepreneur, and two-time loser Jack “Six Teats” McMullen.

The story has him waiting “impatiently in Vermont’s political wings” so he can get on with the business of losing badly to the Democratic nominee.

Well, no, the story doesn’t say that. Not in so many words, at least.

On the streets of Vermont communities, you will hear people talk about how the Democratic primary is the real race for attorney general, with the winner likely to prevail over McMullen.

“I know a lot of people think that,” McMullen acknowledged. He said he hopes to prove them wrong.

You know, I’m a real hard-core political junkie. But I have to admit, I have never, ever, not even once, heard people talk about the race for AG on the streets of Vermont communities.

Back to Jack. He is critical of the lack of prosecution over the Burlington Telecom mess, and of the state’s concern with the labeling of Cabot cheese. He talks about fighting drugs, and slams the Legislature’s attempt to set conditions on Vermont Yankee’s continued operation as “vindictive” and a “bad law.”

And then he is reminded that good ol’ Jim Douglas actually signed that bill into law. To which his response was, (a) admitting he didn’t know that, and (b) asserting that Douglas was “badly advised.” Probably his advisors slipped the VY bill into a big pile of papers and told Jim to sign ’em all. It’d be just like Lunderville to pull a stunt like that.

After the jump: journalistic implications of hopelessness.

And then there are three passages — artfully framed, methinks, by Terri Hallenbeck and Nancy Remsen, to convey the hopelessness of the McMullen campaign without actually saying so — make it clear that McMullen is not really taking this whole “running for attorney general” thing seriously. Or, at least, he’s only just begun to take it seriously.

McMullen said he’s been traveling the state, talking to experts on various issues, from business people in Bennington to the Corrections commissioner.

Translation: “Well, I’m running for AG. Guess I’d better put on a show of learning the issues.”

…[McMullen] said he’s cranking up his campaign team with four staffers and raising money. He had nothing to report in the way of money at the July filing deadline but said he’ll have $20,000 to $25,000 amassed by the next deadline this Wednesday.

Oh, good. At least he will have raised more money than the likes of John MacGovern and Mark Donka. I wait with bated breath to see how much of that 20 G’s is coming from Jack’s own wallet.

McMullen, who ran twice unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate, has both a law degree and a master’s in business administration, but he’s not a member of the Vermont bar. That wouldn’t prevent him legally from being attorney general, but McMullen appears to know it’s a hindrance to persuading voters. He said he’s working on the process of being admitted to the bar in Vermont, as he is in Massachusetts and New York.

Well, that’s nice to hear. Good of Jack to start “working on the process” of becoming a Vermont lawyer, after a solid three months of campaigning for AG. And what, exactly, does “working on the process” mean?

The Freeploid also puts the knife in by recapping McMullen’s disastrous candidacy for US Senate — er, ahem, the first of his two disastrous candidacies for US Senate — which he lost badly to the late lamented Fred Tuttle. And just to be fair, they quote Jack’s explanation for his embarrassing defeat: “he thinks forces conspired to turn his story from that of a successful entrepreneur… into a carpetbagger from Massachusetts…”

Oh, those forces. Those evil, unnamed, dark forces. I feel them beginning to conspire against Jack McMullen once again.

And when he loses, we’ll know who to blame: the forces.  

Hoo boy. Randy Brock, his campaign facing the equivalent of fourth-and-long, trailing badly in the second half, has thrown a Hail Mary pass in the general direction of the end zone.

The Brock campaign has launched a new, Web-only ad slamming Governor Shumlin for “mismanagement.” It’s laughably overwrought, in the summer-movie-trailer style favored by high-priced campaign consultants: Melodramatic music, fast pacing, slammin’ graphics… and no new content whatsoever.

(Oh, and one big embarrassing audio glitch, at around the 1:50 mark. Quickie production, eh?)

Of course, it was produced by one of Brock’s costly consultancies. Which is why it looks so prefab; it’s of a piece with Republican attack ads across the country.

The ad cites five evidences of “mismanagement,” and you’ve heard ’em all before. The Governor’s health care plan, the $21 million energy non-rebate, and his outreach to NORML — which are policy decisions, not management blunders. Plus the, ahem, “overtime scandal,” which tries to conflate the alleged misdeeds of Jim Deegan with Brock’s complaints about total overtime spending, which are two entirely different things. And finally, Brock’s effort to blame Shumlin for the uncertainties over FEMA funding for Irene reconstruction.

Aside from the weak content, two things make me wonder. First, it’s web-only, meaning Brock isn’t even trying to buy TV time. He’s hoping to nab some free-media attention to make up for the lack of paid advertising. This smacks of desperation in a campaign that was having significant financial issues the last time we checked. (Next campaign spending reports due Wednesday!)

And second, there’s copious use of footage from WCAX newscasts, sometimes set in misleading contexts. I realize there’s such a thing as “fair use,” but WCAX is a near-constant presence throughout the ad. Did Channel 3 know about this? Will it raise any objection to this very visible, partisan use of its content and its personalities? (Anchors and reporters are seen on-screen, as is the WCAX logo.) Or is this simply business as usual for the station Peter Freyne dubbed WGOP-TV?  

Environmental protests seem to be on the rise these days. On Monday, six people were arrested at a protest of the Lowell Mountain wind power project. There’s active opposition to a wind project on Grandpa’s Knob in Pittsford. Concern over smart meters prompted the Legislature to allow people to opt out without paying a fee. A pair of artists who live (part-time) in the Northeast Kingdom are planning a protest over wind power, smart meters, and the state Public Service Board. Heck, there’s even a handful of folks in East Charlotte trying to block a proposed solar-power array.

Well, all right then. Defenders of the Earth, taking a stand to keep Vermont pure. They are to be commended, right?

Nope, nope, nope, nope, and nope.  

The protests against wind, solar, and smart meters are misguided at best, selfish at worst. They impede measures that would mitigate climate change. Indeed, they — consciously or otherwise — give aid and comfort to the fossil fuel industry’s drive to maximize profit at the expense of the planet.

I’ve been thinking about this for quite a while. But two recent articles prompted me to turn those thoughts into words:  “The Reckoning,” Bill McKibben’s concise, excellent, and profoundly scary piece on climate change in Rolling Stone; and “Clean Energy Under Siege,” in which the Sierra Club exposes the fossil fuel industry’s bankrolling of opposition to wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources.

McKibben. In just a few pages, he lays out the reality of climate change with stark clarity: We’ve already pumped enough carbon into the atmosphere to cause serious damage. If carbon emissions continue apace, we will soon pass the point where the environment will undergo radical change. If we fully exploit all the known reserves of fossil fuels, the earth will become “a planet straight out of science fiction.” And the fossil fuel industry, while belatedly acknowledging the reality of climate change, is hellbent on exploiting all those reserves and discovering even more.

Sierra Club. Its new report documents how the fossil fuel industry, fearful of the growing competitive threat from renewable energy, is pouring millions into fake “grassroots” organizations that try to provoke local opposition to wind and other energy, and bogus “institutes” that churn out biased “studies” claiming to uncover environmental problems with renewables. It’s the ultimate in greenwashing: creating a faux-environmental movement that’s actually supporting the destruction of the planet.

And some of our fellow Vermonters have been sucked into this.  

Think I’m being unfair? Here’s one small example. In May, opponents of the Lowell Mountain wind project invited Lisa Linowes to speak. She was billed as “a nationally renowned consultant on the impacts of wind energy generation.” Not mentioned: she’s head of a staunch anti-wind organization, the Industrial Wind Action Group, which has ties to the Koch Brothers. Her husband is an influential figure in the corporate-funded Tea Party. She’s a featured player in the Sierra Club’s report on Big Oil’s astroturf movement. She is, in short, a fake environmentalist out to kill renewable energy.

And our anti-wind activists gave her a platform. Thanks, folks.  

As for smart meters, they are valuable tools in lowering peak electricity demand — a major driver in the growth of our power system and its continued reliance on fossil fuels. The arguments against smart meters are bogus, almost nonsensical. Radio waves? You get far more of them in an average household than you’d get if you parked yourself right next to a smart meter 24/7. Privacy? A periodic snapshot of your total power consumption will not provide any useful information about your personal life.

The Sierra Club’s report acknowledges that there is no way to generate energy without some measure of environmental impact. There is no absolutely green power source. But wind and solar are two of the very cleanest, and they are vital if we are to limit the impact of climate change. There may be good reasons for opposing a specific project, and renewable development must be thoroughly regulated; but to oppose any and all renewable projects in Vermont is shortsighted and irresponsible.

The anti-wind protesters say they are trying to preserve Vermont’s pristine environment. But as the earth continues to heat up and our pristine environment is radically transformed, what will the protests have accomplished? The earth is changing, and the installation of wind turbines on some of our ridgelines is the least of our environmental challenges. Climate change won’t stop at the state line because we steadfastly objected to wind energy.

But, say the protesters, wind turbines on Lowell Mountain “won’t contribute significantly to combating climate change.” True enough. The problem is so huge that no single project or power source will “contribute significantly.” That’s why we need to do a lot of things — wind, solar, smart meters, energy efficiency, electric cars, carbon taxes, etc.

Put it this way: If you came upon a house fire and you had a bucket of water, would you refuse to pour it on the flames because it wouldn’t contribute significantly to putting out the fire? I sure hope not.

But that’s exactly what our shortsighted protesters are doing. Pardon me if I don’t applaud.  

Hey, guys:

Stop whining.

Sincerely,

jv

Postscript: I realize that political campaigns can get awfully incestuous and insidery — and that campaign coverage tends to focus on tactics rather than issues — but really, I wish the two Democrats running for Attorney General would stop complaining about each other’s campaigns.

Three reasons. First, if you’re running to be Vermont’s Two-Fisted Attorney General, you’re going to face much tougher fights than this. If you display more toughness than pettiness, it might help convince voters that you can handle the job.

Second, the alleged offenses are trivial compared to the stuff that goes on every day in politics across the country. Sorrell squawks about a “push poll” that manifestly isn’t a push poll, and one of his supporters cries foul over a mistaken absentee-ballot application (which was a mistake, to be sure, but not a scandal). Then Donovan shows the poll questions to reporters on condition that they not reveal the actual questions, which is about as silly as it gets. And today, Donovan holds a news conference to complain about a very measured, not-at-all negative ad being aired by a pro-Sorrell PAC.

And third, the voters don’t give a damn. Much as I’d love to think that negative campaigning will backfire on the attacker, it just doesn’t happen. There are ways to counterattack, but simply complaining about sucker punches or eye gouges doesn’t get you anywhere.

This mutual whinefest might make their campaign staffs feel productive, and it certainly makes the press corps happy — they get to “cover the campaign” without having to figure out the difficult stuff like issues or qualifications. But it does not help the candidates’ images or their efforts to win the primary.  

Okay, so this is completely off-topic, except that our late lamented colleague Julie Waters used to liven up this website with her excellent bird photography. My photo isn’t up to her standard, but it’s a neat story and I wanted to share.

Spouse (Evan by name) and I were flying back to Vermont from out of state. Flight delayed without explanation. (When we boarded the plane an hour and a half late, the info-screen still listed the flight as leaving “on time.”) Killed the time sitting, reading, staring into space, and consuming overpriced airport snax.

While we were sitting there, we noticed a bird or two flitting around the terminal. Little grayish-black birds, about the size of a chickadee. This itself isn’t terribly unusual; birds do get into large open indoor spaces, like big-box stores. And airport terminals.

Evan posited that the birds probably found plenty of food, although not terribly healthy — fast-food leftovers, nuts, chips, etc. But she wondered if they managed to find enough fluids to keep going.

So she took her (costly) bottled water and poured out a few teaspoons on the linoleum. Within a minute, birds were swooping down from all directions. At one point, there were ten of them. Each would drink a little water, fly away, and eventually come back down.

Evan replenished the water a couple of times. After they’d had their fill, some of the birds tried to bathe, rubbing their bellies in the shallow puddle, shaking the water around and grooming their feathers. This continued even though we were sitting less than ten feet away, and passengers were occasionally passing within a few feet of the puddle.

I managed to take a few pictures. Not terribly artistic, but great keepsakes of an unusual encounter with nature in a decidedly unnatural setting. Next time we fly, we might bring along a small plastic bowl.  

Oh, as long as we’re bagging on Vermont journalism, let’s address another common shortcoming of the contemporary news media: stenography instead of reporting.

Case in point: Vince Illuzzi’s plan to prevent timesheet fraud by state workers, and Doug Hoffer’s assertion that much of Illuzzi’s proposal is already in effect. The back-and-forth was covered by the Freeploid and VTDigger; and in each story, the reporter dutifully recorded Illuzzi’s thrust and Hoffer’s riposte.

And made absolutely no effort to determine who was right.

I don’t know if this is a matter of time (and I sympathize with anyone trying to be a reporter in these financially-restricted times) or a misguided effort to be “fair and balanced” by not taking sides. But it seems to me that this is a simple thing to check.

Instead, both stories leave it up in the air. This kind of thing is all too common in the media nowadays, and it’s a profound disservice to news consumers and the greater cause of Truth. Which is supposed to be the point, after all.