Tag Archives: Paul Heintz

Night of the Long Knives at the Free Press

Leave a reply

Well, I can’t say I’m surprised. In fact, I’ve been expecting it for a couple years, since the Burlington Free Press’ news department made a subtle but obvious shift away from Montpelier and toward Chittenden County. But the timing is a shocker:

Before I go on with the thinky stuff, let’s first acknowledge that two people have lost their jobs. Terri Hallenbeck and Nancy Remsen are middle-aged people in a contracting industry that prizes youth. We don’t yet know whether they left on their own or were pushed out, but either way, I feel for them and wish them well. They provided a lot of valuable coverage, and their years of experience are irreplaceable. Well, everybody but Gannett thinks so.

The fact of their departure does not surprise me, but I thought their bosses would have the decency — or sheer expediency — to wait until after the elections were over. You know, have ’em cover election night, get ’em to write up the post-election stuff, and then toss ’em out on Thursday or Friday.

But no. Time, tide, and nervous corporations wait for no man.

On the other hand, maybe the timing was deliberate; it’ll get buried in the election news, and there’s less chance of other media outlets besieging Michael Townsend asking why he’s jettisoning all his experienced talent. And Townsend cravenly refusing to comment. Even though he expects other media outlets to respond to his reporters’ inquiries.

According to one of the other olds left on an ice floe, Tim Johnson, the Freeploid is moving away from the beat system:

“There’s not going to be a city hall beat. There’s not going to be a Statehouse beat. There’s not going to be an education beat.”

Instead, there will be two “teams,” Chittenden and Watchdog. Presumably they won’t have anyone staffing a Montpelier office; they’ll only cover state government when they (a) have a nice juicy story or (b) when there’s a single high-profile event. No more will Free Press reporters roam the halls, gathering tidbits, building relationships, and most importantly, understanding how the place functions.

And that’s important. The State House is a complicated machine; it takes time and attention to figure out what to follow, who to talk to, and where to go.

But the Freeploid and its corporate parent don’t care about that. They just care about having enough “content” to plausibly fill the paper every day. And their top priority isn’t “the public needs to know,” it’s “the public wants to know.” And since the public doesn’t really care that much for the push-and-pull of inside politics, Statehouse news will take a back seat to stuff like local sports and artisanal foods and a women chaining herself to a tree. Oh, and advertiser-friendly “content.”

Since I started actively blogging about three years ago, I’ve maintained a subscription to the Free Press because it frequently had important stories and fairly dependable coverage of state politics and policy. I’m not canceling yet, but I’ll be watching. And I won’t be surprised if, by the first of the year, the Burlington Free Press will have become irrelevant to what I do.

The girlfriend non-issue

Leave a reply

Seven Days’ political columnist Paul Heintz made a rare trip into the office this weekend — well, maybe he just filed from home — to post a thumbsucker piece about whether or not the media should report on Governor Shumlin’s private life.

Specifically, the fact that he’s been, ahem, dating a much younger woman for some time now.

“Dating,” Heintz’ term for it.

Going to the drive-in, hanging out at the malt shop, playing miniature golf, “running out of gas” on the way home. Takes me back.

Madame X, some guy, some guy,some other guy. From some guy's Facebook page.

Madame X, some guy, some guy, some other guy. From some guy’s Facebook page.

Heintz examines the issue because last Thursday, VTDigger’s Anne Galloway posted a very thorough Shumlin profile. And near the very end, she disclosed the open secret that Shumlin has been, uh, “dating” 30-year-old Katie Hunt. In his piece, Heintz explores the Vermont tradition of not addressing the private lives of public figures, and ponders whether Galloway did the right thing.

In the process, he gave himself a chance to say, well, we knew about it too, so it wasn’t a scoop; we’d just decided not to publish it. (I eagerly await Paul’s email explaining how I’m off base, in 3…2…1…)

But the core question: is Hunt’s identity fair game? Was Galloway within her rights to publish it?

To which I say, of course it is and of course she was.

And if, as Heintz implies, the Shumlin camp is upset about it, I suggest they stop whining and concentrate on real stuff. If they’re mad at VTDigger, they should stop taking media coverage too personally.

Really, it’s downright strange that the Shumlineers are hot and bothered about the G.F. when, in the same piece, Galloway has people describing the Governor as two-faced and opportunistic. And within 24 hours, VTDigger also published a long piece exposing all kinds of problems in Vermont Health Connect. All this, plus an election, and you’re upset over the girlfriend? Perspective, people.

The whole notion that Shumlin’s girlfriend’s identity is off limits is just silly. After all, he hasn’t even tried to keep it a secret. The two have been seen together in public, obviously acting as a couple. For God’s sake, there’s a photo of them on Sen Dick Sears’ Facebook page. In light of all that, why the hell should the Governor have any expectation of privacy?

If it’s a Vermont tradition, then it’s one of many Vermont traditions that ought to be dragged out back, shot in the head, and buried as a relic of a bygone age when the media pretended that Babe Ruth didn’t drink and Warren Harding didn’t sleep around. And vice versa.

Besides, if I were Ms. Hunt and I’d been the Governor’s steady for a while now, I’d be wondering why he feels the need to conceal my identity. Am I a little piece on the side, or a real partner?

Also, Galloway framed it responsibly. It was not, as UVM prof Garrison Nelson put it, “tabloid stuff.” It was part of a detailed, comprehensive picture of Peter Shumlin the politician and the person. Family ties are part of the mix, The media routinely mention parents, spouses, children, and other relatives when relevant. There should be no controversy about naming Katie Hunt and then getting on with our business.

Although I do have one question. Do Shumlin’s college-age daughters call her “Mom”?

And the first one bites the dust

1 Reply

The seasonal slasher flick that is the Burlington Free Press has claimed its first victim. Reporter Lynn Monty has been kicked out the door for refusing to go through the “degrading and demoralizing” experience of “interviewing for a job I already had.”

Last week, Freeploid staffers had to re-interview for newly-defined jobs as part of Gannett’s Newsroom of the Future initiative. Seven Days’ Paul Heintz reports that Monty had an interview scheduled, but at the last minute she couldn’t bring herself to go through with it.

“I opted out of the interview process and they laid me off. …I loved my job, but I don’t love Gannett. I will make a new way for myself that doesn’t compromise my integrity.”

… According to Monty, Gannett plans to pay her the difference between unemployment insurance compensation and her full salary for six weeks — one for each year she spent at the paper.

Ooooh, six whole weeks! That’ll take her right into… mid-December.

Merry Christmas!

One other note that strikes me as extremely convenient:

An internal document obtained two weeks ago by Seven Days indicated that final decisions from Gannett were due this week, though Monty said she expected them next week.

Yeah, we’ll expect you all to work your asses off through Election Night, but no guarantees after that.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Dear Mr. Feliciano: You are cordially invited to bug the hell out.

Leave a reply

Nice little scoop hauled in by Paul Heintz in his “Fair Game” column this week. No, not the lead story about the IBM reverse-sale to GlobalFoundries; but the second item, about a Sooper Secret Meeting (that managed to stay secret for less than a week) at which Dan the Libertarian Man was asked by State Sen. Joe Benning to exit the race and endorse Republican Scott Milne.

According to Heintz, “participants pledged to keep the confab confidential,” which ha ha ha. I think we can assume that Benning didn’t send Paul a press release; the more likely scenario is that somebody else in the meeting, or who knew about the meeting, leaked a few details to Heintz, who then gave Benning a call.

At which point, Benning could have issued a denial. But, in this scenario, he apparently thought to himself “What the heck,” and acknowledged the whole “confidential” thing:

The Fixer. )Image pilfered from VTDigger.)

The Fixer. (Image pilfered from VTDigger.)

“I went through the pros and cons of [Feliciano’s] being in the race,” Benning recalled. “I suggested to him that the poll numbers were not in his favor and that if he stayed in the race, the only thing for sure that would happen is Peter Shumlin would walk back in without any kind of contest.”

… “I said that even if he left the race at this stage, it’s still an uphill battle for Scott Milne,” Benning continued. “But in the event that he had any interest in a future in Republican politics, I would imagine folks on our side of the aisle would be a lot happier if there was no split in the ticket in this race.”

Well, if he had dropped out, he’d have had no choice but to pursue “a future in Republican politics,” because he’d be dead to the Libertarian Party, who would have been justifiably outraged to lose their candidate to a GOP power play.

Ethically speaking (ha ha ha), this was an iffy move. It takes guts, or gall, to call another party’s candidate into a meeting and urge him to bug out.

Politically speaking, however, Benning was right.

Remember when Feliciano looked like he was going to steal the right wing away from Milne? When his write-in bid for the Republican nomination was taken seriously, was endorsed by two of the VTGOP’s four statewide officers, and Milne actually bought TV ads to fend off the “threat”?

When there was open speculation about Milne withdrawing in favor of Feliciano?

Believed to be Dan Feliciano at his campaign headquarters.

Believed to be Dan Feliciano at his campaign headquarters.

Well, that ship sailed long ago. Feliciano has done nothing to show he’s captured anything more than a single-digit sliver of the right wing: he’s way down in the poll that actually included him, and more importantly, his fundraising performance makes Scott Milne look like George W. Bush.

Which leaves us with this. If Milne exited the race and endorsed Feliciano, the latter would get the dead-ender vote but Milne would still be on the ballot, in the Republican slot, and would still garner a whole lot of votes from loyal Republicans. Feliciano’s best case: he’d be this year’s Tony Pollina, managing to outpoll a very weak major party candidate (Gaye Symington) but getting nowhere close to the winner. His worst case: he’d get into the low double digits, pulling Milne down to about 30% and making Governor Shumlin look like a landslide winner.

There’s no way Feliciano could pull very many centrist, “sick of Shumlin” votes; his views are too far from the middle.

Milne, on the other hand, has the inherent — and substantial — advantage of carrying the Republican standard. Even though he’s run an awful campaign, he still gets a solid 35% in the polls. He hasn’t convinced very many undecideds, but he’s retained virtually all of the Republican base.

So here’s how it looks to This Political Observer: Shumlin gets in the low-to-mid 50s either way. If Milne is the active opponent, he gets into the low 40s, with Feliciano retaining most of his meager support even if he stops campaigning. (He’s still on the ballot.)

But if Feliciano is Shumlin’s active challenger, then Milne gets about 30% and Feliciano maybe 15. Or Milne 25 and Feliciano 20. Whatever. And the difference is mainly a matter of style points — of how your party will look in the history books.

Of course, this whole kerfuffle is not really about November 4. It’s about what comes after: a potential relitigation of last fall’s intra-party battle for control of the VTGOP. Last year, Phil Scott’s Moderator faction won a narrow victory. Clearly, there are those within the party who’d like a second bite of that wormy, bruised apple.

In this context, Benning’s acknowledgment makes sense. In the short run, he’s trying to further establish Feliciano as a fringer. But beyond the election, it’s a message to the True Believer faction of the VTGOP: backing Feliciano was a mistake, and we’re still in charge.

As usual, this is all speculation on my part. I certainly haven’t gotten any leaks from Benning or any other Republicans. But it makes sense to me. And this is my damn blog.

Freeploid Follies, Weekend Catchup Edition

Leave a reply

Things are getting a little sketchy at the Burlington Free Press, Vermont’s ever-dwindling Largest Newspaper. I’ve got several items to report; none merited separate posts, but they make a nice collective bundle.

— Things are worse inside 100 Bank Street than I thought. And I thought things were pretty damn bad, what with almost every news staffer being forced to reapply for jobs and a new era of clickbait-oriented, sales-friendly journalism about to begin. Er, sorry, that’s the Newsroom Of The Future.

But as Paul Heintz reported in Wednesday’s Fair Game column, the pursuit of clickbait is already in progress:

Sources say that editors have become increasingly focused on web metrics in recent months. Reporters are expected to monitor the number of clicks their stories receive on a daily basis and rejigger headlines and copy to boost readership.

Oh joy. Not only are they allowing reader metrics to determine which stories they cover, they’re rewriting stories and headlines after the fact in hopes of goosing the pageviews. That’s gotta grind at the soul of any self-respecting journalist.

And things will only get worse in the NOTF, when a “Content Coach” will be monitoring pageviews and “coaching” reporters who don’t measure up. (“Say, Terri, any way you could mention the Kardashians in that school-consolidation snoozer?”)

— Speaking of self-respecting journalists, remember the Columbus Day tag team Tweetwar that erupted between The Freeploid’s Mike Donoghue and Adam Silverman in one corner, and Seven Days’ Mark Davis and Paul Heintz in the other? Donoghue and Silverman were vociferously defending the honor of their employer.

Well, interesting thing about that. As Heintz reported on Wednesday, Donoghue and Silverman are two of only four news staffers who are exempt from the reapplication process. No wonder they’re singing the praises of the Freeploid: they got a pass, and won’t have to go through the demeaning and degrading ordeal of having to re-interview at their current employer.

— Speaking of demeaning and degrading, ace journalism watchdog Jim Romenesko reports that Gannett is offering opportunities for current staffers to, ahem, adjust to the Newsroom Of The Future. Gannett’s holding a virtual re-education camp with seminars on subjects like: How to perform well when interviewing for one of the new jobs, writing “sharper” headlines, achieving better SEO for stories, using social media to “establish your brand and personality,” and “cleaning your copy.” The latter will be crucial because the NOTF will include far fewer copy editors, and reporters will be expected to submit publication-ready stories.

You know, if by some hellish circumstance I was offered a job at Bank Street, I’d turn it down. It’s sounding like a truly awful place to work.

— Speaking of truly awful, my Friday Freeploid arrived with a big fat section on pink newsprint. The front page bore the image of a pink ribbon, the Freeploid’s Circle-B logo, and the title “Making Strides: Breast Cancer Awareness.” Inside were a handful of heartwarming articles about cancer survivors and people involved in fundraising, treatment, and research.

But mostly, the 32 pages (!) were full of advertisements by local businesses proclaiming their support for the fight against breast cancer.

Nowhere, as far as I could see, was there any statement that any of the hefty proceeds from this special section would go to cancer research or treatment. Nope, it was the Freeploid cashing in on an emotionally appealing cause. And their many advertisers doing the same.

— Finally, an odd note from late Saturday night. Apparently, the Newsroom Of The Future was empty except for the gray countenance of Executive Editor and Chief Corporate Shill Michael Townsend, because Townsend himself was sending out a stream of Tweets about stories on the Freeploid’s webpage. And one of ’em was a real headscratcher.

Screen Shot 2014-10-18 at 11.26.38 PM

That’s odd, I thought. So I clicked on the link, which took me to an article about Entergy’s announcement on Friday that decommissioning Vermont Yankee will cost $1.24 billion.

But WTF is with Townsend’s gratuitous shot at single payer health care? The article has nothing to do with health care reform.

Maybe Mike was sitting at his desk on a Saturday night, Tweeting his brains out and drowning his sorrows in a bottle of Kentucky’s finest. Otherwise, how can you explain this out-of-nowhere shot at Governor Shumlin’s top priority? It was certainly unbecoming for the Freeploid’s number one exemplar of the Newsroom Of The Future.

Here’s a protip for “establishing your brand” on social media, Mike: Measure twice, Tweet once.

One man’s cheap shot is another’s cogent criticism. Or, why I bag on the Free Press so much

1 Reply

Those who follow Vermont media accounts on Twitter may have enjoyed a little Columbus Day entertainment by way of a Tweetfight between staffers at the Burlington Free Press and Seven Days, which the Freeploid has long looked down at, but which has become a powerful competitor in the battle for print advertising.

It began with Freeploid vet Mike Donoghue taking a little poke at WCAX:

This was a reference to WCAX mistakenly broadcasting a crime scene photo including the body of a murder victim, which the Freeploid wrote up at great length. Seven Days’ Mark Davis Tweeted a reply about the ‘Loid “firing cheapshots at WCAX.” To which the Freeploid’s Adam Silverman replied “Is someone from Seven Days really one to talk about cheap shots?”

Davis pointed out the “thinly veiled glee” the Free Press was exhibiting over a competitor’s mistake. Donoghue and Silverman accused Seven Days of ignoring the story, to which Paul Heintz replied that he hadn’t gotten a call back from WCAX.

This exchange included two contraditory Tweets from Donoghue. First, he accused Seven Days of ignoring the story because the two entities are media partners; and then he insinuated that WCAX won’t return calls from Seven Days because of some unstated offense.

Which is it, Mike? They’re in bed together, or they can’t stand each other?

Anyway, that’s when I lobbed a couple of spitballs from the back of the class, and Silverman went all Charlie Bronson.

Screen Shot 2014-10-13 at 11.47.41 PM

I can just see him grabbing his crotch as he hit “SEND.”

Which brings me, finally, to the point of this post: an explanation of why I so often criticize the Free Press. Or, in the words of Mr. Silverman, why I deliver so many cheap shots.

Basically, it’s all about the words of Voltaire, best known as delivered by Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben:

With great power comes great responsibility.

The Burlington Free Press is the number-one print publication in Vermont. It ought to be the unquestioned leader in serious journalism. But, because Gannett keeps sucking out its precious bodily fluids to satiate the endless thirst of stockholders, we’re left with a depleted newspaper that can’t serve its readers well but still occupies the largest niche in the Vermont news market.

It doesn’t occupy that niche in any satisfying way, but there it sits, and because of the structure of the news marketplace, nobody can dislodge it.

The Burlington Free Press has great power. To be charitable, it does an inconsistent job of exercising that power. To be less charitable, it’s an almost daily disappointment. So when somebody like Mike Donoghue or Aki Soga positions himself as a guardian of the public trust — and yet expects to be insulated from the kinds of accountability or transparency he expects of everyone else (including WCAX) — well, it makes the rest of us throw up in our mouths a little. Likewise, when Jim Fogler or Michael Townsend serve up a column’s worth of bullshit and expect us to gobble it down like steak.

Too often, the Free Press comes across as arrogant and condescending. And its performance fails to justify its overweening sense of superiority. That’s why the Free Press gets so much criticism. And the occasional cheap shot. Expect both to continue.

A double standard at the Free Press? I am shocked! Shocked!

Leave a reply

Ah, the Burlington Free Press: Champion of transparency everywhere outside its own doors.

The Gannett property steadfastly refuses to explain — or often even confirm — the organizational changes, comings and goings, mostly the latter, that affect the quality of its product and the ability of its readers — or should I say multiplatform consumers? — to depend on the Free Press for reliable, comprehensive journalism.

I’m sure the response from Michael Townsend would be, “Well, we’re a business! We have to protect our trade secrets and business strategy. Besides, we’re not bound to the same accountability standards as the public sector.”

Or, as he more succinctly put it to Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz earlier this week,

“I don’t talk to you guys,” he said. “I’m old-fashioned when it comes to competition.”

Oh, really? Well then, riddle me this, Batman: How come your reporters felt free to question WCAX-TV News Director Anson Tebbetts about the station’s mistaken broadcast of a photo of a murder victim?

And how come Tebbetts answered those questions?

“We’ve spent the last 24 hours apologizing for our terrible mistake,” Tebbetts told the Burlington Free Press. “We apologize to the family, her friends, the community and everyone that surrounded this case. It was a terrible mistake, and we’re deeply, deeply sorry.”

If the two men were in each other’s shoes, would Townsend have told Free Press reporters “I don’t talk to you guys”?

The Freeploid has plastered a thorough exploration of the WCAX incident in the prime spot on its webpage, seizing the opportunity to besmirch its’ competitor’s reputation.  And yet, it refuses to answer Heintz’ perfectly reasonable questions about newsroom cutbacks that will affect the quality of the Free Press’ product.

Anson Tebbetts feels a responsibility to his audience. Michael Townsend, apparently, does not.

The Burlington Free Press, transparency hypocrite.

The new polls, part 2: The only thing Shumlin has to fear is Shumlin himself

Leave a reply

(See also part 1, which addressed the Phil Scott/Dean Corren results.)

The latest gubernatorial poll from the Castleton Polling Institute (courtesy of WCAX-TV) is a picture of stagnation, with an electorate disappointed in the incumbent, but finding no acceptable alternatives. The results are right in line with other recent surveys, with the helpful addition of Dan Feliciano clarifying the picture somewhat.

The numbers: Shumlin 47, Milne 35, Feliciano 6, and undecided at 8.

A secondary result, underpinning the above: 45% approve of Governor Shumlin’s performance, 41% disapprove. Bad numbers for an established incumbent, especially for one who was in the 60s at his height.

But while the poll is bad for Shumlin, it’s also bad for his challengers. As WCAX’s dueling analysts put it:

“I don’t think Mr. Milne has given the public a reason to vote for him and that is what Mr. Milne’s challenge is going to be in the next six weeks,” said Mike Smith, Republican political analyst.

How about a shot of 5-Hour Energy?

How about a shot of 5-Hour Energy?

“I think these numbers show that there’s one candidate against Peter Shumlin and that is Peter Shumlin,” said Steve Terry, Democratic political analyst.

Milne is stuck in the mid-30s. And Feliciano, for all the insider buzz about his candidacy, is only taking a small chunk of the conservative vote. Six percent is a lot for a Libertarian, but not much for someone who’d positioned himself as the real alternative to Shumlin. As I wrote before, there’s a whole lot of value in the Republican brand, and a deep loyalty among core Republican voters.

As for the independents and undecideds, they’re stuck. Given the 41% Milne/Feliciano total, I infer that Milne has gained a small number of centrists simply by Not Being Shumlin, while he’s lost a few percentage points to Feliciano among the True Believers. Overall it’s a wash, and not nearly enough to win. And the Governor is the only candidate with the resources to get his message out between now and Election Day. Although the big headline was that Shumlin is under the 50% mark, he still stands a solid chance of not only gaining a pure majority, but getting up into the mid-50s. That’d be a decent, if not overwhelming, mandate.

So, in a solidly blue state, why are Shumlin’s numbers so mediocre? The experts point to the obvious: Vermont Health Connect, the human services troubles, and the Jeremy Dodge land deal.

The first two I buy. The last, nope. I don’t think anybody outside the political media remembers that deal. After initial missteps, Shumlin dealt with it wisely and effectively. Remember “it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup”? Well, in the Dodge deal, there was no coverup. There was a fast and fair resolution.

All right, so now I have to offer my own explanation. In two words:

The doldrums.

Which is partly the VHC and human services problems. But more than that, it’s the lack of real, tangible, landmark achievements.

Which is reflected in Shumlin’s third campaign commercial, focusing on the GMO bill. Now, nice as that bill was, it was a sideshow in this year’s legislative session. And, as Paul Heintz pointed out, it’s a stretch to give the Governor much credit:

For years, Shumlin said he backed GMO labeling in concept, but believed that mandating it was legally perilous. He argued that any such attempt would suffer the same fate as Vermont’s 1994 law requiring dairy products produced with recombinant bovine growth hormone to be labeled as such. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals struck it down in 1996 and awarded damages.

But leave that aside for the moment. The bigger question: Is the GMO bill really the Governor’s signature accomplishment for 2014?

I guess it is. Given the size of the Democratic majority and the big issues facing Vermont, that’s a little bit underwhelming. And I think the voters are underwhelmed. One of Scott Milne’s best lines in yesterday’s WCAX debate concerned school funding: “The Governor had huge approval ratings and big majorities, and he didn’t do anything.”

Shumlin’s signature issue, single-payer health care, is still a mystery shrouded in an enigma. He can’t brag about it, because he hasn’t done it yet. Or even offered a plan. That’s not exactly motivational.

There are solid reasons to defend the Governor’s record. He’s dealt with the aftermath of the 2008 recession and Tropical Storm Irene. He’s had to pull rabbits out of his hat to keep the state budget under control as the federal stimulus funds ebbed away. He’s also taken some good, incremental steps in areas like human services and college affordability. The minimum wage hike was nice. He’s done a lot on renewable energy. His opioid initiative holds great promise, but has yet to bear fruit.

Those are not accomplishments to be sneezed at. They are strong indications of substantial administrative competence. That’s important. But it’s not inspirational.

I think that, more than anything else, Vermont voters are uninspired. When Shumlin launched his active campaign in early September, his challenge was to light a fire in his supporters — and perhaps even in himself. So far, he hasn’t really done it.

IF he does it between now and Election Day, he’ll get into the mid-50s. If he doesn’t, he’ll limp across the finish line in the 50-52% range.

The boy in the bubble

Leave a reply

Scott Milne is honestly convinced he’s got a chance to beat Governor Shumlin.

He thinks, in spite of all available evidence, that all he needs is for voters to believe, and the Evil Pirates of the media to stop insisting his candidacy is dead.

He do believe in fairies. He do. He do. 

He do believe in fairies. He do. He do.

So, how did a successful businessman, who must be keenly aware of the hard knocks of the real world, become so self-deluded?

Well, he’s living in a bubble. And he’s mistaken that bubble for reality.

He spends his time on the stump, interacting with people who hate Governor Shumlin and yearn for deliverance. They welcome his presence and cheer his words.

Everybody else, he never sees. He’s living among a small, self-selected, and heavily skewed sample of Vermonters.

This is his experience everywhere he goes. It’s intoxicating stuff for someone who’s never played at this level before.

On the other hand, he never holds news conferences, so he hasn’t experienced that ego-deflating fandango. From the looks of things, he has little contact with fellow Republicans who are now regretting the day they ceded their precious nomination to him. (Has he ever, even once, made a joint appearance with Phil Scott since the launch of his candidacy?) He’s got a small campaign staff who also have little experience, and are presumably loyal to their man.

Inside the Milne Bubble, there’s a broad groundswell across the state that will carry him to the governorship. Surely, he believes, stuffy old Eric Davis must be wrong; after all, our Pundit Laureate is up in his ivory tower all day, while Scott Milne travels among the Real People of Vermont. Surely Milne’s experiences are more significant than Davis’ private musings.

And when the fairy dies on Election Night, Scott Milne will know who to blame. Not himself, and not the people of Vermont. The real killers will be Eric Davis, Mark Johnson, Anne Galloway, Paul Heintz, and the rest of those damn pirates.

The Burlington Free Press: Your Shameless Hometown Daily

Leave a reply

Last week, I called attention to a bit of hypocrisy from Vermont’s Largest Newspaper: Veteran reporter Mike Donoghue Tweeting a complaint that WCAX had poached his story without attribution. Which was a clear example of Pot/Kettle Syndrome, since the Freeploid has a reputation among journalists as a serial story poacher. Like ESPN, the ‘Loid likes to pretend it’s the only news source in its market.

At the time, I pointed out just one recent example of the Freeploid failing to give credit to another outlet, to wit Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz at Seven Days.

Well, they’re at it again.

On September 3, Seven Days published an article about John Barone, superintendent of schools in Milton, receiving his advanced academic degrees from an institution known to be a diploma mill.

And hey, whad’ya know, on today’s Freeploid front page, there’s a story about John Barone, superintendent of schools in Milton, receiving his advanced academic degrees from an institution known to be a diploma mill.

And it gives no credit to Seven Days.

If you think that’s a coincidence, I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in buying.

And the Free Press had the brass-plated balls to COPYRIGHT the story.

I’m sure they have some ass-covering explanation for this, but I ain’t buying.

Burlington Free Press, serial story-poacher.