While Vermont Press Bureau reporter Darren Allen typically takes long breaks from his media blog before providing several rapid-fire posts, the reason for his most recent absence turns out to be a career change. From Hall Monitor::

Allen, who started this blog two legislative sessions ago as this paper’s first venture into the blogosphere, has decided to leave his post as chief of the Vermont Press Bureau to become the communications director for the Agency of Natural Resources.

He will start his new job — where he will be responsible for letting the public (and us) in on what the more than 600 people in ANR are doing — on Feb. 5.

Allen joins fellow (former) reporter Anson Tebbets in signing on with the Douglas administration in recent weeks. Although I’m sure several former Scudder Parker campaign staffers are sending “I knew it all along!” emails back and forth by now, the move does bring up some meaningful questions (including the question of just how crappy reporting must pay in Vermont to make jumping ship so attractive, given that most people hardly get rich on the State payroll…)

As a discreet discrete incident, it does come as a bit of a surprise. With his graduation from reporter to reporter-slash-columnist (a problematic combination at best), followed by his recent first person narratives of now-US Rep. Peter Welch’s federal transition (including jaunts to DC that suggest his employer had no idea a departure was in the offing), Allen was clearly trying to fashion himself into a media personality rather than a “mere” chronicler (despite what seemed to be a surprisingly thin skin).

But the big question it raises of course, concerns more than one guy’s career change; specifically, just how cozy are some of these reporters with the subjects they are reporting on? It is the same question raised by Chris Graff’s post-AP-expulsion soft landing with National Life, and former Rutland Herald reporter Brendan McKenna’s poor career move to the Communications position for Republican US House candidate Martha Rainville.

We on the left are perhaps a bit too quick to ascribe diabolical intentions to right wing administrations, politicians, and corporate entities (I’m speaking theoretically here… I honestly don’t feel like we’re too quick to do that, but I’m trying to have an open mind…). As such, we assume that if a reporter is truly doing his or her job in ferreting out the truth, they wouldn’t possibly be welcome being employed by such an entity. Neither would they themselves feel comfortable working there. As such, when we see this sort of casual crossover (which seems to be becoming routine, looking at the rapidly diminishing Vermont press corps), we get our hackles up. When it’s just one person, we become dubious of that particular person and feel retroactiviely validated after scrutinizing their biases. When it seems to be a trend, it looks for all the world like proof of institutional collusion between the fourth estate and the power structures they are supposed to be investigating, and thereby (to some extent) protecting us from.

But even if Republican administrations and Insurance Companies aren’t as diabolical as we tend to shorthand them to be, it still seems to me that a reporter doing their job is going to be an annoyance, as the act of journalistic investigation must almost inevitably become annoying to the subject at some point – at least insofar as those subjects are governmental or corporate entities that deal in secrects and message-control. Even if the reporter turns up nothing but butterflies and puppies in their digging, the subject can hardly be expected to be comfortable with them, let alone chummy enough to provide for such a routine back-and-forth on the career train.

But the unfortunate truth is more often that chumminess leads to access, and access leads to stories. Stories lead to attention, readers, raises and job security – which ultimately makes the reporter somewhat dependent on that chumminess to stay on the front page. And who beats up on their chums? If you do, the chum slams the door in your face. No more access. No more story. My latest favorite radio show is NPR’s On the Media which last weekend had a terrific segment on this very subject:

(Host) BOB GARFIELD: Can you cite some examples of times when reporters too immersed in those institutions were unable to cover their beats properly?

(Journalism Professor) EDWARD WASSERMAN: Well, I think that most reporters who have covered beats will tell you that over time, they create a store, repository of stories that they can’t tell. I mean, what do you do when you’re the White House reporter and you know that the president falls asleep during cabinet meetings? Well, you know, that’s a terrific story. The American public would like to know that. And you also realize that your longevity as a White House reporter is going to be severely shortened once you’ve written that story.

And the next thing you know, no matter how supportive your editors are and no matter how pleased you are that you’ve broken that story, over the next few weeks, when all of your rivals are getting the leaks and the interesting plants and stories and are beating your pants off on that beat, they’re going to start to think about moving you off the beat.

Fighting this dynamic depends on an honor system, but it’s a nebulous honor system at times- one that seemingly must bend to the realities of building contacts. Wasserman argues for a serious re-assessment of the very concept of “beat” reporting, noting that some of the biggest stories of the last century (such as Watergate) were broken by reporters coming in from the outside, rather than being beat reporters for the topical sphere from which the story was broken.

It’s hard to imagine the system ever being perfect, but it’s hard not to look at this dynamic (and the revolving door between reporter-and-reported which seems to be spinning wildly in Vermont) and not see a real need for improvement.

You’d think traditional media institutions themselves would be first in line demanding real paradigm shifts in order to maintain their integrity and credibility – especially given their declining reader/viewership and the onslaught of the “new media” and citizen journalism. Unfortunately, traditional media practitioners are a notoriously insular lot who are generally loathe to engage in any meaningful self-critique. From On the Media again, this time a segment by Marketplace correspondent Dan Grech:

ERIC NEWTON: Newsroom cultures are one of the most defensive cultures there are.

DAN GRECH: Eric Newton is the vice-president at the Knight Foundation, a grant-giving nonprofit that outlived its namesake corporation, the Knight Ridder newspaper chain.

ERIC NEWTON: You’ve got hospital emergency rooms, you’ve got the military, you’ve got nuclear power plants and you’ve got newsrooms. Three of those are life-and-death operations and one of them just thinks it is.

If the email exchange I’ve had with one of the local editors recently (as well as the previously linked exchange with Allen) is any indication, this dynamic is alive and well among the Vermont media corps, unfortnately.

This is not only a shame, but a fairly suicidal shame at that. From the same segment, here’s Grech again:

Newspapers themselves face a life-and-death situation. The scariest end game is what’s called the “death spiral.” Newspapers continue to lose readers, which drives away advertisers, which cuts into revenue. That forces job cuts, which erodes the quality of the paper, which chases away more readers and advertisers – on and on until the paper collapses. As reporters recognize the dire situation, their defensiveness has given way to fear.

In the fluid world of today’s media, all traditional venues (not just newspapers) would do well to look at the deteriorating public impression of their industry that is only fed by the appearence of a revolving door between the reporter and the reported-on. After all, the “new media” alternatives are not going away anytime soon.

But with everything in motion, traditional media venues that can examine their own practices and paradigms with a critical eye can find opportunity. Here’s the Knight Foundation’s Eric Newton:

Fifty years from now we’ll look back on this as the Wild West period and the crazy pioneering era in which nobody knew what was going to happen and everything seemed possible, and opportunity flowed from every street corner. It is a wildly exciting time, as long as you’re not pining for what was.

I would argue that this doesn’t just mean looking at the nature of the media themselves, as Newton was suggesting, but the very nature of journalism as Wasserman suggested.

Consider: ethics reform in political circles has included restrictions on how long a US Congressperson must wait after leaving office before they are legally entitled to work as a lobbyist. The point is to increase public trust and enhance the integrity of the process by avoiding the appearence of a revolving door between the Legislature and the powerful monied interests who work the Capitol Halls to influence legislation. Perhaps professional media venues would be well-served by a similar code that established a comparable waiting period before a reporter could accept a job for the very interests he or she has been tasked to report on.

It’s something to kick around, at any rate.

Me today in response to the new blogad I approved: At first I went “ew.” Then I just chuckled. Now I really don’t care.

Fact is, I let Edwards pay for a slot. Seems unreasonable not to let Hillary. I have a hard time imagining that she has many supporters here, but whatever.

On the other hand, seeing her face on the site every time it loads up gives me the heebie jeebies. She really bothers me (sorry goDLC…)

What do you all think? Am I a sell out? Should I have rejected the ad (especially when I wouldn’t hesitate to reject ads from a lot of corporate monstrosities like Chevron or something)? Does it matter?

If you wanna, have at it below. I’m leaving this on the side as it doesn’t seem like front page material, but I promise not to jump into the comments.

If we’re going to bash politicians for not living up to their promises, we need to acknowledge them when they do. If we’re going to have low expectations for our elected officials, we should acknowledge them when they surprise us and meet those expectations. Otherwise, frankly, we’re just gripers.

The flip side, of course, is when they DO surpass expectation, the bar goes up for the next time.

The US House Dems met their 100 hour goal for enacting several emblematic pieces of legislation; minimum wage hike, 9-11 commission recommendations, ethics reform etc. Most striking to me was the one that got the least attention; the multi-billion dollar smackdown of the oil industry. From Canada.com (hey, why not?):

The U.S. House of Representatives rolled back billions of dollars in oil industry subsidies Thursday in what supporters hailed as a new direction in energy policy toward more renewable fuels.

Democrats said the legislation could produce as much as $15 billion in revenue. Most of that money would pay to promote renewable fuels such as solar and wind power, alternative fuels including ethanol and biodiesel and incentives for conservation.

So yeah, I’m impressed. I guess at the end of the day, I didn’t really expect squat. Now I do, and I will continue to expect more – but not just from Washington.

Democrats in Montpelier have a similarly unfriendly Chief Executive to worry about, but enjoy a far more powerful majority than their Washington counterparts. And as complex as State governance is, it is nowhere near the behemoth that is the federal government. Obviously state lawmakers don’t have the staff support that federal lawmakers do, but I still think it’s reasonable to expect that if Democrats in Washington can accomplish significant, substantive improvements in a matter of hours, Democrats in Montpelier can manage comparable feats over a four month session.

Unfortunately, last session revealed a caucus that was often loathe to walk and chew gum at the same time. Against the roar of health care, other progressive priorities were left by the wayside. That’s not to say other legislation didn’t go through – some of it significant, but often, caucus leadership decided to ration its legislative attentions very cautiously. This presumably irrefutable inability to multitask was one of the prime excuses we heard for letting the Jefferson’s Manual impeachment bill languish and die.

Already the signs are disturbing. This time, climate change is the banner cause – an important one, to be sure, but it shouldn’t be used as an issue to mollify the liberal base and hide from other sticky, but also urgent, priorities. For example, word is that health care will not be revisited. This may be practical (the potentially veto-proof non-Republican majority may not stand up to real, comprehensive reform), or it may simply be a dodge. In either case, the Washington Dems 100-hour priorities may well fall themselves to the veto pen, but it clearly didn’t stop them from giving it their best shot, nonetheless – yet another bar-raising effect that can’t help but trickle down to the local level.

Also, it’s likely only a matter of days before the impeachment debate returns with a new bill on the wall.

And there’s agriculture, Vermont Yankee – and of course property tax will be elbowing itself in.

The Washington Dems have shown us that a lot of balls can be succesfully juggled at once – and quickly. There is no reason to expect anything less from our local representation.

From Welch’s office:

Welch became an original cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 18, sponsored by Rep. John Murtha, a decorated Vietnam veteran, which calls for an immediate redeployment of our troops from Iraq.  The first section states that “The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.”

Welch also cosponsored H.R. 353, legislation sponsored by Rep. Edward Markey, that prohibits the President from spending funds to escalate the troop presence in Iraq without prior Congressional approval.

Now I am not someone who expects or demands instantaneous success. I expect more than rhetoric, but I also respect that the process is the process. Welch is a new Representative and he’s dotting his ‘i’s and crossing his ‘t’s, but given that it’s only January 19th of his first term, he’s doing so with relative speed, frankly. In his short time, he’s already taken more forceful action on the war than Bernie did (granted, having control of the House makes that easier).

So if (when) these attempts are ignored (assuming they pass), Welch and the House Dems will be left looking at their Constitutional options; pursestring control and impeachment. Regarding the pursestrings, Welch’s office goes on to say:

Regarding future funding of the Iraq war, Welch says he “will view the President’s expected supplemental funding request with great skepticism and scrutiny.”

That’s a shot across the bow. Whether it’s a bluff or not is impossible to say at this point. I’d like to believe to it’s not, but calling the question at all is still (alas) a touchy subject. Congrats to Welch for being one of the ones to put it out there.

From MoveOn.org:

At the meetings we’ll nail down Rep. Peter Welch’s position on escalation of the war in Iraq-it’s one more way we can show that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to this plan. And we won’t stop there.

We want to make sure the change we voted for is real-on all the important issues. This is the window of time to help frame the political agenda. There are four lobbyists in Washington for every one member of Congress, and they’re working all the time to block real progress on our energy and health care crises. But there are a heck of a lot more of us-and if we make very clear what we want, and hold our representatives’ feet to the fire, we can make sure the new Congress does what it was elected to do.

Here’s the generic petition MoveOn is circulating in advance of their sit-down. Obviously it’s not just Welch they’re talking to, so feel free to share the link with folks outside of Vermont.

Damn! Okay, thing is, my 2-year old has decided to take 2 hours to get to sleep over the last couple weeks, so my blogging has suffered. Here, then, is a rapid fire list of updates – most of which probably deserve full diaries, but what’re y’gonna do, y’know?

Don’t forget the “Bring the Troops Home” rally in Montpelier this Saturday. At 10 am, folks are gathering at City Hall, at 10:30 am there’s a march to the statehouse with a rally, and at 1pm, a showing of ‘Sir, No Sir!” with speaker Liam Madden. Check vtimpeach.com for details

Montpelier resident and political regular Jon Anderson is also interested in retiring Rep. Francis Brooks’ seat, which amends my previous diary on it. That makes four people interested in three slots for gubernatorial presentation. Guess that Dem committee meeting will have to be more than 2 minutes after all. Here’s the Times Argus piece which confirrms Charlie Phillips has backed off, but completely blacks out confirmed candidate Cary Brown and likely candidate Matt Levin. What gives? Based on their other reports on the matter, you have to wonder if the Times Argus editorial board has picked their own candidate…

The Progs have an official blog called the Prog Blog (not to be confused with ProgBlog). Surprised it took them so long. With only a handful of electeds, it’s an ideal medium for them, although as an official “institutional” blog, its impact may be limited. We’ll see.

Speaking of institutional blogs, VNRC has refitted their website through the good work of Union Street Media (thanks guys). It now allows for comments and user story submissions. Currently there’s a poll up on their organizational/environmental priorities. By all means, go vote.

You’ve probably read Allen’s piece on O’Reilly’s continuing obsession with Vermont, which can be found here. What you may not have seen is this first-person account of a Shaftsbury-area dKos frequenter’s encounter with this Fox-hackery. Check it out here.

Middlebury College’s “DigitalBridges2007” conference on Saturday, Jan. 27, from 9:15-6:45 will be focusing largely on blogging and other social networking tools. Among the panelists is Karl Frisch, director of media relations for Media Matters. I can’t find a clean website with info (ironic, no?) but click here for an email contact. Looks like a lot of fun, actually, with workshops all day.

Nationally, Sidney Blumenthal at Salon has an interesting profile of John McCain that’s worth a quick read (it’s short). Here’s the choice bit:

McCain’s political colleagues, however, know another side of the action hero — a volatile man with a hair-trigger temper, who shouted at Sen. Ted Kennedy on the Senate floor to “shut up,” called his fellow Republican senators “shithead,” “fucking jerk,” “asshole,” and joked in 1998 at a Republican fundraiser about the teenage daughter of President Clinton, “Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father.” As recently as a few months ago, McCain suddenly rushed up to a friend of mine, a prominent Washington attorney, at a social event, and threatened to beat him up because he represented a client McCain happened to dislike, and then, just as suddenly, profusely and tearfully apologized.

Obama is running for President. As if we didn’t know that already, but – you know…

And that’s why I wanted to tell you first that I’ll be filing papers today to create a presidential exploratory committee. For the next several weeks, I am going to talk with people from around the country, listening and learning more about the challenges we face as a nation, the opportunities that lie before us, and the role that a presidential campaign might play in bringing our country together. And on February 10th, at the end of these decisions and in my home state of Illinois, I’ll share my plans with my friends, neighbors and fellow Americans.

IMO, he’s the odds on favorite at this point, but keep an eye on Edwards…

There is increasing hubbub around the question of replacing Francis Brooks (D-Montpelier) when he steps into the Sergeant-at-arms position. Of course traditionally, the local Party committee nominates three potential replacements to forward to the Governor, none of whom he is obligated to accept – although usually one is chosen. A few people in Montpelier have been either making noises about the slot, or have actively put their names forward. In an unusual twist, one seems to be actively campaigning for the position (despite the fact that the Montpelier Town Democratic committee hardly makes the final decision, and that the town committee is only currently made up of nineteen people), making the whole matter impossible not to blog about…

Get the who’s who below the fold.

The highest profile name in the mix is clearly Montpelier Mayor Mary Hooper. Hooper’s initial expression of interest garnered her mention on the matter in two front page stories in the Times Argus within three days (here and here). In addition, she today sent out an already broadly circulating email campaigning for the position:

I hope this is old news to you, but I wanted to share with you directly, my long standing interest and aspirations to serve Montpelier in the Legislature.  I have a passion to help people improve their lives and to do this in a way that is appropriate for Vermont.  That is what motivated me to run for mayor three years ago.  It is what has driven my work in City Hall and what will power my work in the legislature.

We have built, and maintain, a wonderful community in Montpelier. There is much more we, and other communities, can do with legislative support to improve people’s lives in the areas of housing, transportation, hunger, and the environment.  I am committed to work for you on these and other issues.  You know that I am also committed to carefully listening to all of Montpelier’s residents and acting on your behalf.

The combined media and persuasion push looks for all the world like an actual campaign. I suppose it’s good practice for an election, but one wonders a bit as to whether it’ll matter in the final vote. Hooper is already a shoe-in for one of the Dem committee slots, and the Governor may or may not respond well to such a campaign. Hooper’s expressed desire for the position has, however, kept a few other high-profile local faces who were interested in the role from putting their names forward, according to accounts – so to that extent, it may have worked in her favor. Most agree that Hooper has rising star potential beyond Montpelier’s borders. Whether that works for or against her in the eyes of the Governor is an open question.

Reportedly, popular former Montpelier High School Principal (and one time Senate candidate) Charlie Phillips has expressed an interest (although an unconfirmed report suggests he’s reconsidered). Phillips was highly lauded during his time at MHS, but was not a strong candidate for countywide office, which may make him a more politically safe choice for the Governor, if GOP Senator Phil Scott (R-Washington) is feeling queasy about enabling a Hooper ascendence.

Generally, Hooper and Phillips (in a Montpelier context) would have to be looked at as the more moderate candidates. They are also professionals steeped in the understanding of civil mechanisms, and both have a track record of building agreement in such contexts to generate positive results. The two other names out there would likely bring a more progressive ideological slant to the position.

Although not technically in the mix yet, Matt Levin is strongly considering throwing his name in. Despite a relatively limited time lving in Vermont, Levin has made his name very well known in political circles (and not simply for being the son of US Rep. Sander Levin and the nephew of US Sen. Carl Levin, both Democrats of Michigan). Levin has been the Political Director for the Alliance of Conservation Voters, the Director of the Vermont Democratic House Campaign, is serving as Outreach and Development Director for Vermonters for a Clean Environment, and has done consulting for many local Democratic candidates (including Scudder Parker). Levin is a strong personality and a political pro. Whether that political background would be at play in the Governor’s decision is another open question.

Cary Brown, like Levin, is a Montpelier JP, but the resume similarity ends there. Brown is currently the Interim Executive Director at the Turtle Island Children’s Center in Montpelier and has spent most of the last decade in the education system, directing programs focusing on gender equity and non-traditional skills training for girls through institutions and nonprofits such as Vermont Technical College and Northern New England Tradeswomen. As a Democratic State Committee member, Brown was able to share this GMD diary after the State Committee meeting last year that was dubbed by Freyne as the “Rutland Massacre.” Brown does not have the political gravitas of the others interested, which could work against her in the caucus, but may work for her with the Governor.

Finally, statehouse lobbyist Anthony Otis seems to have taken a keen interest in the race. As he reportedly has not thrown his name into the hat, it’s an open question as to whether or not that interest is on his, or someone else’s behalf, but he’s been reported by a few people to have been chatting the matter up.

Of course the man closest to all this is GMD’s own Jack McCullough, who as Montpelier Democratic Chair gets to be the ringmaster of the big committee meeting. Given his role as arbiter, though, we can hardly expect him to blog on it. We should all feel free to needle him relentlessly, nevertheless…

…and if you’re looking for an endorsement from me, forget it. I’ve been trying to be as blandly analytical as possible here, because I’ve got a conflict of interest as well; specifically, I’m married to one of the candidates (I’ll give you a hint – I’m not the “First Gentleman” of Montpelier). Whether that admission is tantamount to an endorsement is your call. If it is, whether or not that endorsement should be worth a damn under the circumstances seems like a far easier call.

Anyway, one way or the other, I’m sure there’ll be more to say on the matter soon enough…

So PoliticsVT – the blog I never quite understood, but read (and often linked to) religiously – has gone the way of all things, more or less on schedule. I’ll certainly miss the regular stop on my daily surfing, the lively back-and-forths in their comments, and their entertaining inability to spell the singular “woman.”

I’ll always wonder what was going on there. Not the anonymity thing, so much as the continuum between the “Golden Age PolVT” with “Moe Robinson” and the “Silver Age PolVT” with the whole political undead schtick. But that’s okay, as I was just grateful for bloggers that made more typos than I do.

PolVT was the “Raw Story” of Vermont politics, going up with every rumor they heard, sometimes being spot on (and other times… hmmmmm, not so much). They were often the online punching bag (which I know got to ’em sometimes), but even the punchers kept coming back for their daily fix. As nature abhors a vaccuum, no doubt someone will try to fill their niche – but I suspect whoever does won’t be nearly as entertaining. Bye folks!

The hemming and hawing over Bush’s anticipated plans for an escalation in Iraq by the end of the month is in play, with high-ranking Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan suggesting he may sign on. The mind simply boggles.

On the Republican side, there is a lot of responsible-sounding, non-committal chest thumping that will inevitably end with everyone dutifully falling into line with Bush (with the possible exception of Oregon Senator Gordon Smith).

So who are we counting on, here?

Newly elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hedged a bit, was was pretty specific in her recent threat against it:

In an interview in her new office at the capitol, Pelosi told reporters, including KCBS’ Doug Sovern, that a troop surge translates to an escalation of the war in Iraq. She said sending more forces is the exact opposite of what most Americans want and the White House can’t expect the new Congress to approve money for the action.

“They have to know that the election of a Democratic Congress has made a difference in the oversight of in war in Iraq.”

Pelosi said she is not willing to cut off money for the whole war, but will demand justification for any new funding.

That’ll be hard to step away from. Many other House Dems (such as Murtha and Blumenauer) are with her on this.

Her counterpart in the Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada, has sounded less solid in the last several days – but most recently gave reason for optimism:

In a blunt challenge to President Bush, the leader of the Senate’s new Democratic majority said Monday he will “look at everything” within his power to wind down the war in Iraq, short of cutting off funding for troops already deployed.

“I think we’ve got to tell the president what he’s doing as wrong. We’ve got to start bringing our folks home,” said Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada

Of course the big news is Senator Kennedy’s proposed of legislation to prevent this very thing:

Declaring that “American values and America’s role in the world are all at stake,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on Tuesday said he will lead an effort to block funding for a troop surge in Iraq “unless and until Congress approves” President Bush’s plan for such a deployment.

In a speech at the National Press Club, Kennedy, D-Mass., the No. 2 Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he and Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., would introduce legislation later in the day aimed at forcing Bush to gain congressional consent for his new Iraq strategy, which the president plans to unveil in a televised address to the nation Wednesday night.

That’s Kennedy and Markey.

Then there’s the local team: