(UPDATE: Just caught the Hallenbeck/Hemingway piece in the Freeps on this, and I should add that it, too, was well-done as stand-alone reporting, as well as in serving to further the public conversation. It’s good for everyone that the discussion has widened among the 4th estate, and we’re seeing some solid journalism in the process.)
(UPDATEx2: Ken Picard has a follow-up spun off his blurt blog piece in this week’s paper. It should be noted that he does address the TBI issue in the context of the current charges in the last couple paragraphs. It reads a bit like an obligatory afterthought, but in fairness it may not have if I’d read it first and not brought in the icky feeling I already had from reading the coverage up to this point. Let me repeat what I’ve said on many occasions – Picard is one of my favorite reporters in the state. In addition to praising him several times on this site, I even told him directly that I am “a big fan” at last year’s Daysie party, but that doesn’t change the fact that the 7 Days coverage of Flanagan has made me (and many others) feel icky.)
There’s just been something – untoward – about Seven Days’ coverage of the story it broke regarding Ed Flanagan’s alleged behavior in the Burlington YMCA. It certainly started off on the snarky side in tone. It’s also been relentless. Since Totten’s initial column, he, Ken Picard and Cathy Resmer have all produced further follow-up posts on the 7 Days blog which have served to keep the story’s fires burning without moving the narrative – which has remained the talk of the town – forward dramatically.
And in my mind, one line continues to color all the coverage; Totten’s comment that “…I wonder if Flanagan’s supporters will reconsider their blind faith in his ability to handle the rigors of public office…”. It’s made it all seem like a gotcha moment, initiated by a Burlington activist with a clear axe to grind (Tiki “[if you] were principled in the first place, you wouldn’t be a Dem.” Archambeau), making the subsequent coverage seem… well… like piling on, laced as it is (given Totten’s line) with a sense of self-satisfaction in getting back at the world for the criticism of Picard’s initial, poorly-sourced article on Flanagan’s statehouse performance. I dunno, that may not be fair, but I know I’m not alone in this queasy feeling.
And that visceral reaction felt a bit validated today, juxtaposed against the excellent coverage from VPR’s John Dillon on the radio this morning. Not only was its tone far more appropriate for a work of professional journalism, it was complete, airing a full discussion of Traumatic Brain Injury – the key component missing from the Seven Days coverage since the allegations broke.
Among the traditional media outlets, Dillon’s piece should be considered the gold standard. Until I heard his report, I felt like I hadn’t heard the whole story. He approaches the touchiest of subjects like a real pro. Some excerpts after the fold.
And last month, reports surfaced that Flanagan was seen on several occasions masturbating in the locker room of an adults-only fitness center at the Burlington YMCA.
Flanagan denies he did anything wrong, although he’s apologized for offending anyone. He said he’s still learning how his injury has changed him.
(Flanagan) “I’m constantly discovering little subtle ways that the traumatic brain injury impacts discretionary decisions I make. And I guess I made a poor one here, and I’ll be very careful not to make such a poor judgment again.”
(Knakal) “Dis-inhibition is absolutely one of the issues that you can see after a head injury, but it’s usually something you see early after injury and not so much a late effect of traumatic brain injury.”
(Dillon) Flanagan says he’s fully recovered. But he says injuries like his can change a person’s behavior.
(Flanagan) “Brain injuries could affect discretionary decisions that affect behavior, yes.”
(Dillon) “And do you think that’s what happened here?”
(Flanagan) “I don’t know, but it may have been a large factor in the incident.”
Paquin said that for brain-injured people to succeed in public life, they have to manage their disability in a way that their political career can be judged fairly. And that may involve reaching out to others for help. Paquin said they must effectively communicate, do a good job of representing their constituents, and show the public that they can work with other political leaders.
(Paquin) None of those things are determined by any particular disability that an individual has. The question is does the individual understand how to get what accommodation they need around their disabilities so their abilities can be the determining factor for their constituents.
Here, again, is the link to the whole shebang. Do yourself a favor and check it out. And give VPR a pledge while you’re at it.
