I’ve been slow to the party regarding Compass Vermont, a not-so-new entry into our sadly depleted media ecosystem. I welcome its participation, because we can use all the help we can get on the journalism front. I hope it succeeds, although I have some serious reservations about its real merit.

Which brings me to its latest “scoop” and what it reveals about the limitations of Compass’ approach and the broad hints of serious ideological bent.

Compass’ big reveal? Attorney General Charity Clark sometimes exaggerates her accomplishments.

OH NO.

I clutch my pearls. I reach for the smelling salts. I search for the Captain Renault screenshot. I am shocked — shocked — to learn that a politician is acting like a politician.

Compass did its due diligence on this “exclusive.” It compared Clark’s public declarations of victory with her actual role in relevant cases. It lists “Clark’s Claims” alongside “Reality Checks” aimed at debunking the efforts of her “PR Team.”

Which, I guess, we’re supposed to be scandalized that a prominent elected official has a PR team?

There are no errors of fact in Compass’ account. But even so, it is deeply, profoundly misleading.

Constant Readers may note that I have made similar comments about Clark overstating her role in multistate lawsuits. It’s true. But I also included the context, which Compass completely omits.

First, virtually all non-gubernatorial statewide officeholders are angling to move up the chain. Clark may be ambitious, but so are Lt. Gov. John “Suing My Home Town” Rodgers and Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Hanzas and especially the reigning king of naked ambition, Treasurer Mike Pieciak. (I eagerly await Compass’ report on Rodgers’ campaign finance misadventures.)

Among the current crop, only Auditor Doug Hoffer is content in his current post. This is a long and storied tradition in Vermont politics; the “lesser” statewide offices are usually occupied by politicians who see their posts as stepping stones. The success stories among their number include, just off the top of my head, Howard Dean, Jim Douglas, and yes, Phil Scott.

Second, it’s specifically a long and storied tradition for Vermont attorneys general to do precisely what Clark has done — exaggerate their role in multistate lawsuits. Bill Sorrell was the grand master of this, and his successor T.J. Donovan used the same playbook. Should anyone be surprised that Clark is doing the same thing as her Democratic predecessors?

Well, you might be surprised if all you know is what Compass reported, because its story completely omitted all that context. It leaves the impression that Clark stands out in terms of ladder-climbing and resumé-padding. In truth, she does not.

So what exactly is Compass Vermont, anyway? Well, that’s not entirely clear. The subhead of its “About” page reads “Both Sides, Full Story: You Decide,” which is awfully close to Fox News’ famous tagline, “We Report, You Decide.” For what it’s worth, I doubt that Charity Clark sees “Both Sides” fairly presented in the Compass report. I sure don’t.

Compass posits itself as working “on a collaborative resource model” aimed at eliminating what it apparently sees as the biggest problem with journalism today: reporter bylines. It’s a system, says Compass, “where a single journalist often handles the research, writing, and final reporting in isolation.”

Well, that’s some high-grade bullshit right there. Professional journalistic enterprises have checks and balances. Editors oversee the reporting process with a goal of representing all sides of any issue. A reporter’s product is edited, often with a fine-toothed comb — and often to the exasperation of the reporter.

“Instead,” bloviates Compass, “we encourage input from a team of professional resources for additions, edits, and refinements that truly enrich our coverage.”

The identity and nature of those “professional resources” are undisclosed. The only name you’ll find on Compass’ website is that of owner Tom Davis, “a professional media writer, editor, publisher and owner of digital publications and radio stations,” not to mention the Economic Development Director for the town of Northfield.

Who are these “resources”? How do they shape Compass’ content? No clue is offered. You’ll have to accept that its process, whatever the hell it is, “protect[s] against bias” and presents “Both Sides, Full Story.”

A fair and unbiased reading of Compass’ Clark “exposé” shows some serious bias against a top Democratic officeholder and one of our highest elected female officials. Coincidence, perhaps.

And if Compass’ process is designed to protect against bias, then what about its account of a so-far unsolved murder in Woodbury that has, you will be stunned to hear, “uncorked a torrent of fear, fury, and frustration that is boiling over in communities across Vermont.”

Really now.

Not to belittle the seriousness of the crime, not to pass any judgment on the police investigation, but do you see any sign of “a torrent of fear, fury and frustration… in communities across Vermont”?

The only such torrent I see is the protest movement against Donald Trump.

The Clark story and that line from the Woodbury account tell me there’s something seriously stinky in the black-box editorial process at Compass Vermont. I’ll be keeping an eye on its output. I’ll happily spotlight anything it produces that’s worthy of wider attention. But I ain’t holding my breath.