Did you notice who did not complain about the Vermont Republican Party’s banning press coverage of its big event with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie?

The Vermont Democratic Party, that’s who.

Perhaps because reporters were not all that welcome at Michelle Obama’s two fund-raising speeches in and around Burlington last year.

Not that the two situations are identical. Michelle Obama is not an elected public official. She held a brief news conference while she was here, which Christie did not. But the biggest difference is that her speeches were, in fact, covered by the media.

By only one “pool” reporter, to be sure, an arrangement to which Vermont journalists objected. They were right to object. The rules permitted no radio or television coverage. More reporters covering an event – each with his or her own perspective – is always better than fewer.

But the event was covered. The pool reporter told the rest of the press corps what Mrs. Obama had said so they could tell their readers, listeners and viewers. The only vital public concern – that everybody who cared to know what she said could easily learn it – was satisfied.

Still, Vermont Democrats (who seem not to be returning phone calls this week) might well have figured that explaining this distinction would be too complicated for many voters.

And, come to think of it, for some reporters, not all of whom sufficiently appreciate nuance.

Besides, in the context of political fundraising and the transparency or lack thereof, Democrats no doubt don’t want to give Republicans the opportunity to bring up that closed-door event Gov. Peter Shumlin and three other Democratic governors held with lobbyists down in Manchester last September.

That wasn’t exactly comparable to Christie’s speech, either. The governors are public officials, but they weren’t making speeches. Nor was the event open to the public in the way Christie’ speech was open to anyone willing to contribute at least $50 to Vermont Republicans. The Shumlin event – actually sponsored by the Democratic Governors Association that Shumlin chairs – was invitation only.

But again, the Democrats quite likely figured they’d rather avoid the discussion, hence their silence. When it comes to conducting their affairs in the open, neither party is superior to the other.

And both are inferior to the way they used to be. Until the mid-1980s, when the president of the United States spoke at a big party fundraiser – the kind held in a hotel ballroom and open to anyone who bought a ticket – reporters were not simply allowed into the ballroom. They had the run of it. They could wander about and chit-chat with the assembled pols (and get a drink at the bar to help loosen tongues). They even had their own tables where they were served the same food as the paying guests.

For whatever reason, that began to change in the middle of the Reagan years. First, the meals stopped coming, a small loss considering the quality of the food. Then the wandering around privilege disappeared, a much larger loss because wandering around and chit-chatting with pols is essential to the job. Then coverage was limited to one pool reporter, usually confined behind one of those plush movie-theater ropes during the entire event.

Now, with Christie’s appearance at the Champlain Valley Exposition in Essex Junction (though probably not for the first time), no coverage at all.

The little history lesson is important because it proves that politicians and parties don’t have to be so secretive.

So why are they?

Because they can get away with it. And they can get away with it because almost nobody cares except the reporters who are kept out of the events.

Whether anyone else should care is an interesting question. But surely they should not care out of any sympathy for the reporters, who deserve no sympathy. Here’s a little secret: people decide to become reporters because it is more fun than working for a living, “working for a living” here being defined as going to the same place at the same time every day and doing essentially the same thing. It’s absurd to expect all those folks who do have to work for a living (by this definition) to spend any time thinking about the plight and privileges of those who do not.

But they might worry about themselves, as citizens, and whether they lose anything by not knowing what a potential candidate for president tells a roomful of party loyalists.

In this case, it seems to have been the potential candidate – Christie – who insisted on the no-coverage rule. In an email, Republican State Chairman Dave Sunderland said the decision was made “after consulting with Governor Christie’s representatives.”

It’s not likely that Christie really thinks nobody is going to know what he said Wednesday night. He must remember that Mitt Romney’s now-famed “47 percent” remarks were made in what he thought was a secure fund-raising event.

In that case, secure with a hidden camera. In this case, 600 guests, many of whom will talk to reporters later, and at least one of whom seems hostile to Christie and the Republicans and might put his own negative spin on his account.

But that’s exactly why reporters – or at least one pool reporter as in Michelle Obama’s visit – should have been in that hall. The account of a disinterested observer might even have been better for Christie. But who cares about him? It would have been better for you, for the general public of the state of Vermont, because you ought to have a dispassionate, accurate account of his remarks, the kind you can best get from a professional journalist.

That’s why you should care. Not because some reporters complain (and even – let’s be candid – whine) about not being allowed into the hallowed hall (where, of course, they would be bored out of their minds while waiting for the speech to begin, and probably most of the way through it). Why should you care about them?

Except that in this case, they are your surrogates, and you should use them as such. You – meaning, of course, the collective you, not each individual you – ought to be able to find out what elected officials say to large crowds. If those officials try to keep you from knowing, it’s reasonable for you to wonder just what they are trying to hide.