VTDigger just wrapped up a successful fundraiser with a strong promise: “Reader support will power statewide election coverage, daily news and investigative reporting across Vermont.”
Yeah, well, none of that is happening. Election coverage has been meager, daily news is thin on the ground, and investigative reporting is a thing of the past.
Let’s make it clear that I WANT VTDIGGER TO FLOURISH. We need a strong, vibrant VTDigger as a foundational piece of our media ecosystem. My family continues to give monthly, and we have no plans to change that. But we definitely feel like we’re not getting our money’s worth, and that VTDigger is falling short of its mission.
I went back over the past 12 weekdays (activity is lower on weekends) using Digger’s “Latest Stories” page, and the results were depressing. A total of 38 original stories were posted, not counting reposts from other outlets. That’s an average of 3 1/4 stories per day including three pieces by Carly Berlin, a reporter shared with Vermont Public.
What’s more, out of 38 stories, I would classify eight as features, not hard news. Fall foliage, the Tunbridge Fair, a once-banned children’s book, a profile of a Vermont filmmaker, stuff like that.
On the other hand, try to find content that meets Digger’s fundraising promise of “statewide election coverage” and “investigative reporting.” I counted four campaign-related stories (when we’re in the midst of the general election season) and nothing that resembles investigative reporting. You know, actual digging.
Two of the four campaign stories were about the two recent opinion polls. Both were written by Tierney Flavin, a VTDigger intern who’s been there less than a month. Nothing against interns, but they shouldn’t be taking point on your election coverage. Her stories were adequate but Seven Days’ coverage was much better.
Speaking of interns, Digger has two of them, Flavin and Emma White. Together they accounted for eight stories in 12 days, a very respectable pace. So the actual staff of paid journalists was cranking out roughly 2 1/2 stories per day.
How many paid journalists? According to Digger’s “Meet Our Team” page, it’s 10 1/2; Auditi Guha is listed as a reporter and editor.
That’s not a lot of stories for a staff of that size. Maybe the reporters are tied up in meetings with editors. Digger employs a total of 8 1/2 editors, which seems awfully high for such a small newsroom. As one veteran newsman asked me, “What are they doing all day?”
I don’t know if this is the influence of Digger’s new CEO Brendan Kinney, formerly a top manager at Vermont Public. But Digger is trending toward the public media staffing model, which tends to be top-heavy with editors and management types. In the case of an outlet like Vermont Public, there are some good reasons for that. Financially, there’s much more going on — more money coming in and going out. Plus, they produce content in multiple media — prose, digital, audio, video, long- and short-form journalism, broadcasts, podcasts — and their product has to stand alongside national content from NPR and PBS. That’s a high standard to meet.
Digger, on the other hand, is almost exclusively a print product. It shouldn’t be that time-consuming. It shouldn’t require a nearly 1:1 ratio of editors to reporters.
One other troubling detail. On September 16, Education Secretary Zoie Saunders announced a one-year limit on hiring new superintendents. It’s one of the most impactful stories to come out of Montpelier since the Legislature left town. And Digger didn’t do its own journalism! It simply reposted a story from The Addison Independent!
This isn’t what Digger’s content-sharing agreements are supposed to be about. They are designed to get more news from around the state before Digger’s readership and allow local outlets to use Digger stories of interest to their readers. Do I really need to say that Digger shouldn’t be depending on a local outlet to cover a big story from Montpelier? Apparently I do need to say it.
Which brings me back to the organization’s mission:
The mission of the Vermont Journalism Trust [Digger’s parent organization] is to produce rigorous journalism that explains complex issues, promotes public accountability and fosters democratic and civic engagement.
The Trust reports an even more rigorous mission in its annual filings with the Internal Revenue Service:
Information is power. The mission of the Vermont Journalism Trust and VTDigger.org is to give that power to Vermonters by making complex public policy issues readily accessible, by holding government accountable and by giving readers opportunities to become active participants in democracy.
That reads like an artifact of the Anne Galloway era. It sure feels off the mark regarding the VTDigger of 2today. But really, the VTDigger of today is doing a lousy job of fulfilling either mission. Its name also seems like a relic of the days when Galloway spearheaded coverage of the EB-5 scandal.
Digger’s entire beat used to be the Statehouse, state government and politics. Now, a single reporter, Shawn Robinson, covers both government and politics. Some reporters cover policy beats that bring them occasionally to the Statehouse, while others are on geographically-assigned beats that offer coverage of different regions but dilute Digger’s ability to bring sunlight to the corridors of power.
Some have blamed the unionization of Digger’s newsroom for the lower productivity. I’m sure it has increased costs and imposed tighter limits on workloads. But the union was created because Digger was a terrible place to work and had been for years. The union isn’t going away; it’s up to management to create a cooperative relationship with its workforce. They are all, fundamentally, on the same team. The union has no interest in killing its golden goose, especially in such tough times for the news business.
Much of Digger’s productivity decline is due to financial constraints. We know, from its annual filings with the IRS, that Digger is recovering from some bad times. The last year Digger finished in the black was 2021; since then, the losses have been $1 million in 2022, $772,000 in 2023, and a relatively encouraging $76,000 in 2024. Net assets have plunged by more than half during that period. Its 2025 filing is due at the end of October.
We know that Kinney was hired, in large part, because he was a key player in growing Vermont Public’s donor base. I wish him all the luck in the world. I hope he’s the leader they need. He’s only been on the job for a few months, so it’s far too soon to tell how he will fare. But right now, things are not looking great at VTDigger. The output is underwhelming, which makes it harder to attract the clicks and, more crucially, the donors.
If Digger is morphing from a watchdog prowling state government into a general-interest publication, what’s the unique selling proposition? Digger is competing with whole worlds of content-production entities, from The New York Times and NPR to local news outlets like The Commons and The Other Paper. It’s a crowded marketplace, and Digger’s offerings aren’t as distinctive as they used to be. That’s a big problem, and I don’t think more of the same is going to turn things around.
My thought regarding VTDigger is simple: let it rot on the vine and hopefully some useful seeds will drop off to create new organizations. In the meantime my money will be reserved for The Bridge, Waterbury Roundabout, Chester Telegraph, and The Hardwick Gazette. (I don’t donate regularly but I do spread my donations around.)
I knew there was no more “digging” to be had the day they eliminated comments from their news stories – not quite the move when one of one’s alleged raison d’etre is to foster civic engagement. To me it was a loud signal that broadcast their intent to move away from the controversial to the bland and non-offending.
And then they refused to entertain a letter/oped I had written explaining in plain and publicly acceptable terms the process that E Jean Carroll went through and how it should be accepted as proof of rape on the part of Trump. The non-Digger’s response was running a letter like that, especially during an election cycle, would be considered influencing the election itself and thus they, as a non-profit, can’t print it.
Then I noticed how they NEVER corrected their mistakes even when I pointed out specific inaccuracies with either proof of the inaccuracy or contacts who could provide the accurate information.
I’d resubscribe to the Washington Post before I’d give anymore money to VTDigger, and I have absolutely no intention of resubscribing to the Washington Post without a major earthquake in our nation’s news businesses.
Folks should stop wasting time and money on VTDigger – there are better and much more informative resources out there.
I am not the connoisseur of journalism that John and Rama are, but I agree with Rama that Digger’s decision to eliminate comments marked the beginning of a significant downward slide. The comments section was by far the most interesting appeal of Digger.
Like Rama, I’ve submitted 2 letters responding to commentaries Digger published, only to be told (only when I asked) that they had published enough on the subject (genocide).
Actually, that says more than first appears to be the case. Digger no longer has regular opinion writers (McClaughry, etc.) so the comments section (now limited to 4 total for unexplained reasons) so this section is the sole place where readers actually exchange opinions. It would be an opportunity to continue to have a lively paper in the absence of many paid writers, but it’s been thrown away.
One thing I noticed back when the comments section existed was that there is a lot of writing talent in Vermont: people from all walks of life, with all sorts of opinions, etc. It’s part of what makes Vermont as attractive a place to live as it is.
So the loss of this outlet is no small thing.
It’s interesting that the comments section is the only section of the site that doesn’t have it’s own link at the top and bottom of the pages. At one point, you had to click on the “hamburger” menu to even access it.
Over the years, I’ve written them with numerous suggestions about this and other issues, pretty much all of which has been ignored.
Unlike both John and Rama, I didn’t think the “good ole days” at Digger were all that great, but I agree that they are trending downward. A rather petulant arrogance has been baked into the site from the onset.
Still, like John, I hope the site continues and succeeds. We need more, not fewer, news sources in VT.
Rama and JG bring up good points. I view the demise of Vtdigger the result of Galloway embarrassing Vermont’s elites, revealing them to be grifters and con artists, thieves really – every bit as corrupt as the current orang man clown-in-chief. After the EB-5 scandal the upper crusties got together and decided to take control of digger via the ‘trust’ and then pushed Anne out in order to make sure no more pesky investigations in the corrupt and self-dealing establishment would tarnish the ‘oh so good and morally pure’ Vermont crackers.
John points out the demise of VTDigger began with the elimination of the comments section and totally agree. There were a lot of very well informed commenters that made the comments the main attraction and made digger look bad as journalists who failed to ask basic questions and do due diligence.
Hopefully digger’s kids who are scribbling furtively read your blog and work to push the envelop with the corporate scum that runs the show. Better yet, they should bail and find a better, more meaningful life than licking boots for a paycheck.