| Seriously. Mitch Wertlieb just did an excellent interview of Paula Routly, publisher of Seven Days, and David Mindich, a journalism professor at St. Michael's, and it is almost beyond belief. As you might guess, the interview conerns the Dubie campaign's misuse of a survey Seven Days did of State House insiders last year in which they identified Peter Shumlin as the "most ethically challenged" legislator. What's wrong with that, you might ask? How about the fact that Seven Days sent out 400 surveys, got about thirty back, and awarded Shumlin this dubious title based on only twelve votes? Oh yeah, and it was all anonymous. In the interview, Routly is somewhere between totally clueless, wilfully blind to the effects of her actions, or just floundering to get out of a bad situation. For instance, she says that Seven Days can't be held responsible for how people use their news coverage, while in almost the next breath acknowledging that Democrats started complaining to her as soon as the "survey" was published that what has happened--the misuse of the results by the Republicans--was exactly what was predictably going to happen. Routly's rationalization is that the survey was a good way for the readers of Seven Days to get inside information about what happens in the State House, like Dick Sears's temper or David Deen's environmentalist cred. Does she really expect us to believe that there was no other way to get this information? Obviously, there are a couple of giant holes with her argument. First, if the survey is invalid, as this one clearly was, how can she credibly claim that it was a valid basis to provide accurate information to the readers? Quick answer: she can't. Second, Seven Days already knows how to do in-depth, probing coverage of what happens in the State House. Even without getting insiders to go on the record, which is another of Routly's rationalizations, Seven Days did a very strong story on Ed Flanagan's problems as a state senator; some people argued that the story was unfair, but I haven't heard anyone knowledgeable in what happens in the State House claim that it was inaccurate. As you listen to the story, and I hope you will, listen carefully to Routly's answers. Even as she admits the small size of the poll, she argues that the "most ethically challenged" rating for Shumlin is "significant" because "he won by 43% of the vote, however small it was" (of their microscopic sample). More Routly: "I don't think we can plan our coverage based on how information is going to be manipulated." Nobody is saying they should. On the other hand, it is entirely appropriate for news consumers to expect that they will plan their coverage based on whether their reporters were able to actually find and report a story. In this case, Routly is totally oblivious to the fact that Seven Days did a terrible job of reporting this. When they essentally got nothing in response to their survey the responsible course would have been to decide that they don't have enough information to report and spike the story. Now they've become a tool of the Dubie campaign, they have only themselves to blame, but Shumlin and the voters of Vermont may wind up as the victims of what can only be considered a gross example of journalistic malpractice. |
