This letter is by Peggy Sapphire of Craftsbury. She is a member of the Orleans County Committee for the Vermont Progressive Party.
Response to Steve Cormier’s vtdigger article on the Gubernatorial Candidates Forum, Newport, February 27 2010
Twenty elderly Vermonters and two Democratic gubernatorial prospects turned out for Saturday’s candidate forum in Newport.</p>
Cormier’s statement is patently untrue, and its apparent premise is perjorative: What is Steve Cormier attempting to perpetuate by using the term “elderly”? I attended and I am not “elderly”. As a member of the OC Progressive Caucus ( and Secretary of VPP Coordinating Committee) I helped organize this forum, and object strenuously to this purported ‘fact’ and other questionable aspects of Cormier’s entire report.
However, let’s suppose, that there were in fact only “elderly” Vermonters in attendance: What does that imply to Steve Cormier? And how does that inform the purpose of his report? Did Cormier interview and thus validate his report, and did he record the ages of those attending? And what does he calculate is an “elderly” age? And what of the clearly young(er) people in the audience?
Faced with more empty chairs than people, organizers started the forum earlier than scheduled – 1 p.m….
Yes, there were more empty chair than people. Orleans County Progressives rented the American Legion Hall in Newport, which offers event seating for hundreds. Our Forum drew, by hand-count, approximately 40 people. The OC Progressive’s most hopeful estimate regarding the number of potential attendees at our event, did not anticipate that attendees would fill (or even almost fill) the Hall. Once again, Cormier’s judgmental and careless approach to covering this event seems obvious.
…after Matt Dunne announced that he had to race off to another public appearance on the other side of the state — Magic Hat’s Mardi Gras Parade.
I would suggest Cormier’s characterization of Matt Dunne as having had to “race off”, is uncalled for, and casts a perjorative slant on Dunne’s appearance. Matt Dunne in fact, with OC Progressives cooperation, arrived at the Orleans Forum an hour earlier than originally planned. This because he was also committed to the Burlington event. Though our Forum was to start at 1pm, we gladly accepted his time-constraints, and appreciated that he didn’t cancel his appearance with us altogether. Shumlin and Markowitz, also slated for the Burlington event, chose not to attend our Forum at all. Bartlett told us she was unavailable due to a previously scheduled meeting. OC Progressives were and are very appreciative of Dunne’s appearance and the approximately one hour given to both presenting his positions and responding to questions.
Doug Racine, who might also have chosen to apply time-constraints on his appearance at the Forum, not only did not limit his time with us, chose to forego the Mardi Gras Parade in order to make himself available to the people of Orleans, and gave generously of his time. We are very appreciative of his time and his priorities.
I suggest Steve Cormier would have been wise to contextualize the circumstances of both Dunne’s and Racine’s attendance at our Forum. The resulting journalism would have benefitted by such accuracies and attributions.
The Orleans County Progressive Party Caucus set up the afternoon event to draw candidates to the far northeastern corner of Vermont, which organizers said is often overlooked.
Had Cormier interviewed OC Progressives for the facts of how we organized this forum, he would have learned, and reported accurately the following:
1. OC Progressives organized the February 27 Forum on its own, having first requested a jointly organized forum with the OC Democrats. OC Progressive’s attempt to help host a bipartisan forum was rejected by OC Democrats. In fact though holding such Forums in five other areas of the state, State Democrat leadership planned no such forums in the Northeast Kingdom. The rationale for Dems skipping Orleans County includes the assumption that Orleans County does not offer the numbers (of potential attendees) nor the accompanying yield of donations. Democrat organized Gubernatorial Candidates Forum elsewhere in the state are tied to Democrat fundraising opportunities for the Dems. Please note: OC Progressives did not do /had no intention of fundraising at this Forum.
2. OC Progressives, committed to the idea that the Northeast Kingdom communities deserve opportunities to have direct access to candidates, went ahead on its own to organize this Forum.
Dunne and Racine covered many subjects lightly…
What does “lightly” mean? And what is Steve Cormier implying by that characterization?
Taken together, I suggest that in future, coverage of the on-going gubernatorial campaign, the participation of candidates and the work of all political entities be covered dispassionately, with fairness and attention to facts. It is worrisome that, as a journalism intern (i.e.pre-professional), Cormier displayed a troubling lack of diligence in preparation for and the writing of his report. Such careless reports do a disservice to the efforts of all who seek to provide opportunities for people to consider and evaluate their political choices.
In my opinion, vtdigger deserves to have its interns practice and aspire to finer standards of journalism.
Sincerely,
Peggy Sapphire
Please note: Lyndon State College intern Steve Cormier’s assignment was to report on what he saw at the candidate’s forum on Saturday. We stand by his story. We did, however, remove the word “elderly” from his lede. The story follows. –Anne Galloway, editor, Vtdigger.org.
Bah, sour grapes from a very defensive organizer. Everyone has a different view of even the most simple event. Keep digging!
Elderly, smelderly. What the lead should have said was that forty likely voters turned out to hear the gubernatorial candidates since older people vote in higher numbers that any other age group.
The demographic make-up of a particular political meeting is significant and relevant. The word “elderly” should not have been censored from Steve’s article, but the word “mostly” should have been added in front of it. The group mostly consisted of elderly people. That is a significant piece of information. I want to know that in learning about a particular meeting or candidate. It is a descriptive term that tells me something about the event. The paper should not have self-censored to appease a political operative. Steve’s instincts in covering the meeting were correct; he just needed a modifyer before “elderly.” That is the real concern that I have with this situation. Censorship under pressure from political organizations is very dangerous.