Unfair, biased coverage, Good Government lawyer says
by Guy Page
With ballots landing in voters’ mailboxes, the final push is on from both proponents and opponents of Proposal 5 (aka Article 22), the constitutional amendment that would make abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy a constitutional right in the Green Mountain State. But opponents of Proposal 5 are calling foul that Vermont’s largest media outlets are putting a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of the pro-abortion side.
On September 26, Norm Smith, an attorney working with Vermonters for Good Government, contacted Vermont Public (formerly VPR) about a program on Proposal 5 that scheduled three pro-abortion activists, and zero from the other side. Smith’s email reads,
“Why are you having such a one-sided presentation? The panelists will all clearly be pro Article 22 individuals… Vermont Public purports to be fair and unbiased. Clearly, you are not opening up discussion and including individuals who are opposed to Article 22. Vermont Public’s objectivity in this matter is clearly compromised.”
Matthew Smith of Vermont Public replied with a defense of their decisions regarding guests, concluding, “I feel our guests are equipped to speak to the medical and legal questions most callers and questions will bring up. If you have concerns about the amendment or questions we could pose to our guests, please do send them along or call during the show tomorrow.”
A moderately polite blow off. Norm Smith’s request that a similar panel show featuring only Proposal 5 opponents has as of this writing gone unanswered.
“What those [Vermont Public] panelists are equipped to do,” Smith said, “is deflect the hard questions, assuming any are actually asked, about the real problematic issues with Proposal 5, both from a Pro-Life and a Pro-Choice perspective. The fact that it makes late term abortion a right, which around 90% of people oppose, and the fact that the vague open ended language that could open the door to far more controversial issues that even the Proposal’s supporters can’t agree upon or explain.”
Meanwhile, on September 28, WCAX ran a 7 minute 11 second story, which is about three times longer than the average news segment, on Proposal 5 that was essentially a reading of pro-Proposal 5 talking points by the reporter and allowing two Proposal 5 supporters to defend their position – again without allowing anyone from the other side to present their case.
It is also worth noting that back in February, VTDigger, Vermont’s largest on-line news provider, made a $1000 in-kind contribution in free advertising to a pro-Proposal 5 PAC the day before the House of Representatives voted to advance the measure. Although when publicly called out on this fact, Digger called the contribution a mistake and the PAC eventually paid for the advertising, “It does expose a mindset,” said Vermonters for Good Government Executive Director Matthew Strong.
These latest news stories come at a time when pro-Proposal 5 activists and politicians are backing out of debates with those who hold opposing points of view. Senators Ruth Hardy (D-Addison), Ginny Lyons (D-Chittenden), and Representative Ann Pugh (D-South Burlington) had all agreed to participate in either public forum discussions or media debates with opponents of Proposal 5, only to withdraw.
Representative Anne Donahue (R-Northfield), who is also a spokesperson for Vermonters for Good Government, said, “The arguments in favor of Proposal 5 don’t hold up to scrutiny, and it’s becoming clear to the people pushing it that this is the case. This is a Constitutional Amendment we’re talking about, not a law that can be easily repealed or amended if serious flaws in it become immediately apparent, or somewhere down the road. The media has a responsibility to try to knock as many holes in this as possible. If the arguments in favor hold up, so be it. But if they don’t – and in the case of Proposal 5, they don’t – Vermont voters deserve to know just how flawed and problematic the thing they are being asked to vote on is.”