Seems to be a bit of a kerfuffle down Chester way. It goes back a couple weeks, but it hasn’t been noted beyond local press accounts.

At its March 18 meeting, the Chester select board was doing a bit of routine annual business: designating newspapers of record, where official notices are to be published. And boy, did board chair Lee Gustafson try to pull off an unconstitutional power play. His behavior ought to warrant an ethics investigation except that, well, the underfunded, understaffed state Ethics Commission has washed its hands of local ethical issues due to a lack of resources. So he’s probably off the hook.

The select board ultimately voted to continue with two papers of record: The Chester Telegraph and The Vermont Journal. But Gustafson used his position of authority to try to kneecap The Telegraph’s journalistic independence. If he’d had his way, The Telegraph would have been cut out.

The Telegraph is a proud independent local paper that often punches above its weight. The Vermont Journal, generally speaking, is not much of a paper. It describes itself as an “upbeat” publication and most of its content is more fluff than substance. (Its “News” section consists largely of repurposed press releases.) However, it did itself proud in reporting on Gustafson’s attempted bullying of The Telegraph. The Journal’s was the most complete account, since The Telegraph took a very restrained approach for some understandable reasons.

But let’s get back to what happened, viewable on the select board’s YouTube channel.

During public comment, a failed school board candidate named Randy Miles criticized The Telegraph for alleged bias and urged the board to end its status as a paper of record for the town. When the board took up the issue, Gustafson launched into a sustained attack on The Telegraph’s reporting. It was framed as “just asking questions,” and like any bully, Gustafson beat a hasty retreat whenever he got called on his bullshit.

But his intent was clear. Gustafson accused The Telegraph of “political bias” and “painting Chester not necessarily in the right light.”

I guess good journalism should be a whitewash? All righty then.

“I understand, good journalists, you want to get the clicks and you want to get the information out there, and you have your spin, we all have our own bias,” Gustafson said, revealing his ignorance of professional journalism. He then unspooled this little rhetorical gem:

But my question is as paper of record, we’re paying you a bunch of money every year to print notices, and yet when we read some of the articles or some things come across, they’re not necessarily, I’m not asking you to print falsehoods, but I think there’s a way of stating facts in a less controversial, less confrontational way. …I’m just asking that if we do appoint you as paper of record, that you just be a little more circumspect.

If you’ll allow me to paraphrase, “Nice little paper you got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.”

Gustafson’s examples of “bias” were awfully picayune. He complained about The Telegraph describing a select board candidate as suffering a “trouncing” on Town Meeting Day. Considering that said candidate lost by a margin of 403 to 262, I’d say “trouncing” is nothing more than accurate. He complained about a Telegraph editorial describing an unnamed Brattleboro resident as “a MAGA troll.” From context, that someone was clearly Hank Poitras, a.k.a. Planet Hank, who might well be the most obnoxious troll in Vermont. If Gustafson is defending the honor of Planet Hank, I think we know where he’s coming from ideologically.

And c’mon, it was an editorial, clearly labeled as such.

Gustafson’s remarks were aimed directly at the only representative of either paper in attendance: Telegraph reporter Shawn Cunningham, who was there to cover the meeting. It was not Cunningham’s job to defend his employer while acting as a journalist, and it was grossly unfair of Gustafson to put him in that position. It also effectively handcuffed Cunningham’s ability to report, since he was forced into an active role in the meeting. So instead of a blow-by-blow of Gustafson’s attempted power play, The Telegraph’s story offered a very brief description and simply embedded the video of the meeting.

And that’s the only way Gustafson’s bullying had any real effect. He neutered the only reporter on hand for that single meeting. The rest of the board didn’t share his views; the vote on renewing both papers was four in favor and Gustafson abstaining.

But it could have gone differently. If Gustafson had a couple more allies on the board, The Telegraph would be on the outside looking in. And in these days of diminished ad revenue, being a paper of record is a modest lifeline for independent journalism. It is not a boon to be bestowed upon the politically congruent. Not in the America I love, anyway.

Even if the paper sometimes depicts its town in “not necessarily the right light.”