front porch flimflam
Flimflam /ˈflɪm.flæm/: n. Talk that intends to deceive ... v. To swindle or dupe
VTDigger
This page was first published on Dec. 19, 2022. Any updates after that will be noted up here at the top, but the rest will be unchanged and in the order in which things took place.
If you ended up here directly, you can visit this page for a brief overview and background to the below thread.
The only editing to what is below has been done where content (like a full Commentary submission) can be linked to the full text rather than have that text take up space here.
---------------------------
From: Kristian Connolly
Date: Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 10:34 AM
Subject: A request
To: <commentary@vtdigger.org>, Tom Kearney <tkearney@vtdigger.org>
Hi Tom,
I hope all is well, and that you are feeling more free now that election season has passed. :)
I am writing to you because I believe I have an important story for VTDigger, and for your readers, and I'd like to submit it to you for your review/thoughts, and/or to share with others at VTDigger. This story is not only of interest to our community, and to every town in our state, but also even in some neighboring communities in border states as well as national media and tech figures. Some 215,000+ people just in Vermont.
I'm submitting the below as a Commentary, though my preference, if it were possible, would be to have it be given a more prominent place among the news stories published by VTDigger and be treated as more of a "personal history." If VTDigger decided there was a traditional news story to write here on top of what I've written, then that's obviously VTDigger's call.
This story involves the suppression of a community member's voice by a company that people would least expect to suppress community members' voices. The community member is me. But it is not only my voice that is being suppressed in our community, but also my wife's because of her association with me. Which is why I believe I should be the one to write this story – that it be in my voice – and that I am the person to first share this with others in our community.
At 1,248 words, the below has been painstakingly shaped to be as slim as possible without omitting anything key. In it, you will find ways to learn the entire story in order to substantiate everything you're reading below. On that note, I do not expect the story to link away from the VTDigger site, but I definitely do wish that the website address I have included twice remains in the body text of the story.
Thanks for considering, please let me know as soon as possible if you'll be able to publish this on VTDigger.
Sincerely,
Kristian
[First Commentary submission here]
From: Kristian Connolly
Date: Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: A request
To: <commentary@vtdigger.org>, Tom Kearney <tkearney@vtdigger.org>
Hi Tom,
I hope all is well. I just wanted to confirm receipt of the below last week.
Thanks!
Kristian
[First Commentary submission here]
From: Tom Kearney <tkearney@vtdigger.org>
Date: Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: A request
To: Kristian Connolly
Got it. We've been mulling.
We're not going to publish this. It would require a huge verification effort, and we'd rather reserve that effort for actual investigations, rather than an opinion column.
Second, we don't publish every letter or column sent our way; they may have similar problems of extensive verification, or other issues that run afoul of our commentary guidelines.
Tom Kearney
Senior Editor
VTDigger
From: Kristian Connolly
Date: Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: A request
To: Tom Kearney <tkearney@vtdigger.org>
Hi Tom,
Thanks very much for getting back to me. I do appreciate it.
I suggest that this story is worthy of an actual investigation and the effort to tell the story.
It'd be very disappointing that VTDigger, with its "news in pursuit of truth" slogan, wouldn't believe that it's news that two citizens of Montpelier, the state capital, are being unjustly oppressed by a beloved Vermont corporation that promotes an image that is of being anything but oppressors -- and in fact, being quite the opposite. This is a for-profit company literally asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars from Vermonters every year, money people give because of the image the company puts out into the world -- which is false.
But it's your news outlet, of course, so there's nothing I can do about it but try to change your mind. :)
On that note, I wanted to let you know that the website frontporchflimflam.com is live. I've also contacted roughly 130 FPF donors to tell them this story.
And, because the FPF co-founder and CEO often tells an "origin story" that involves he and his wife (also a co-founder) flyering in their Burlington neighborhood to get FPF launched, I'm flyering around both that same Burlington neighborhood and various spots in Montpelier this week.
I used FPF because it was local, and to me, felt more like a public square in my community. Obviously, I was wrong about that -- unless the public square I was imagining contained speech police who favored certain types of speakers over others, and banished those that they didn't like or didn't donate money to a for-profit business. Which I was not imagining!
I'm being as transparent about this whole situation as I can be, because what's gone on here is wrong, and I believe people should know about it. It's all right there on the website, on the emails page. The emails were the only way any of this was handled and communicated by both sides. Nothing more, nothing less. And the rest of the story on the site is just filling in the timeline, and relevant points.
Thanks again.
Be well,
Kristian
From: Kristian Connolly
Date: Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: A request
To: Tom Kearney <tkearney@vtdigger.org>
Good morning, Tom.
I've been giving the verification obstacle some thought, and have reworked my Commentary to alleviate any of those issues. In this sense, it's more like recent Commentaries opposing the VSECU merger, like this one -- though that one seemed to have a lot more assertions in it than what I have submitted below.
Again, the URL I have provided therein does not need to be hyperlinked, but it should remain a part of the content to allow your readers to decide if they'd like to go off site to learn more.
The Commentary also is now much tighter. I've submitted it below for your review, and below that have provided you with locations that you may easily be able to find anything I've referenced -- which is all from published news stories or the FPF site itself.
I sincerely hope that you will run the Commentary in the near future.
Thanks again for all of your help.
Kristian
[Revised Commentary submission here]
[Here's the list of links that accompanied that revised Commentary:
https://frontporchforum.com/media
https://frontporchforum.com/media/article82
https://frontporchforum.com/media/article65
https://frontporchforum.com/keeping-it-civil
https://blog.frontporchforum.com/2022/11/03/talking-politics-on-fpf-finding-the-shared-middle/
https://blog.frontporchforum.com/2022/10/31/thanks-for-filling-our-leaf-bag-2/
]
From: Kristian Connolly
Date: Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: A request
To: Tom Kearney <tkearney@vtdigger.org>
Good morning, Tom,
I hope you are well and looking forward to the holiday weekend. I'm following up on my revised Commentary submission of a week ago, copied below. Again, it was re-submitted, and shortened, to alleviate the obstacles you'd cited about verification, and I included the links that referenced anything I'd quoted or mentioned with regard to Front Porch Forum.
Thanks very much for considering.
Sincerely,
Kristian
[Revised Commentary submission here]
From: Kristian Connolly
Date: Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 6:37 AM
Subject: Following up on LTE submission
To: Letters Editor <letters@vtdigger.org>
Good morning,
On Wednesday, Nov. 16, I used the form to submit an LTE. This was in response to some unwarranted criticism I'd received for a Commentary, and also to note a couple of notably absent substantive facts about the author making those criticisms. I also followed up later in the day via this email address with a couple brief corrections -- one inserting a missing em dash, the other changing out one word for another.
Since it's now been nearly two weeks and it looks like today's LTEs have been posted (including two by the same author), I was wondering whether you had an update as to the status of my submission.
Thanks!
Kristian
From: Letters Editor <letters@vtdigger.org>
Date: Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: Following up on LTE submission
To: Kristian Connolly
Kristian, we're happy to publish your opinions, but not to engage in tit-for-tat exchanges. Our commentary writers put their thoughts out there, and other writers are free to agree or disagree. We're not engaging in running arguments.
Tom Kearney
From: Kristian Connolly
Date: Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: Following up on LTE submission
To: Letters Editor <letters@vtdigger.org>
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the note, and update. I didn't think this was a running argument. I was merely responding to an LTE VTDigger did publish, from someone who does not live in Vermont, that was critical of me, and my commentary, and that failed to state that the author not only had a professional connection to, and interest in, the subject matter being discussed, but also a direct connection to one of the organizations that my commentary had been critical of for its fundraising event.
One might even draw the conclusion that the organization put this particular author up to tearing down my commentary, but I didn't do that in my LTE. That's for others to decide.
I am pretty sure that there is an "affiliation" field in the LTE form, and that this author should have made that clear. I don't expect VTDigger to do that work before publishing an LTE, but it also shouldn't prohibit those facts from being known once VTDigger has been made aware, even if it's the commentary author making those points in self-defense. That's not giving people the truth.
Since we're here, I was talking to my wife about this this morning, and she mentioned that she also has an LTE that was submitted in response to a Nov. 18 news story on VTDigger, and that has not been published either. It was about a Burlington City Council candidate. Do you have an update about that?
Thanks,
Kristian
From: Letters Editor <letters@vtdigger.org>
Date: Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Following up on LTE submission
To: Kristian Connolly
Kristian, I apologize to your wife. Letters sent to VTDigger are merged into a single document for that day, which is annoying, but that's how the system works. I completely missed Deborah Connolly's letter in that day's package.
I found it through a search and we'll print it this week.
Tom
From: Kristian Connolly
Date: Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: Following up on LTE submission
To: Letters Editor <letters@vtdigger.org>
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the update, I will let Deborah know.
I'd rather not cross streams here, but it's easier just to take stock of where things are in one note:
Am I to understand that you will not be publishing my LTE, and -- because I've not heard back from you for two weeks after two attempts to email you a revised and toned-down Commentary -- you will not be publishing that updated Commentary either?
I hope to hear back from you so that I can consider how to proceed.
Thanks again,
Kristian
From: Kristian Connolly
Date: Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 9:29 AM
Subject: new Commentary submission
To: <commentary@vtdigger.org>, Tom Kearney <tkearney@vtdigger.org>
Cc: Paul Heintz <pheintz@vtdigger.org>, Maggie Cassidy <mcassidy@vtdigger.org>
Hi all,
Please find a Commentary submitted below. If you could let me know when this will run, I would sincerely appreciate it.
Thanks very much,
Kristian
[Third Commentary submission here]
From: Kristian Connolly
Date: Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 5:29 PM
Subject: Press release paid for, not posted
To: <membership@vtdigger.org>
Hi,
I submitted a press release this morning at 7:30 a.m. I have a receipt, and the email thanking me for my donation. There is one new press release posted on VTDigger from today, and it is not the one I submitted.
Can someone please fill me in as to why the press release I submitted and paid for is not on VTDigger.org, and presumably will not be in tomorrow's email newsletter?
Thanks,
Kristian Connolly
From: Kristian Connolly
Date: Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: new Commentary submission
To: <commentary@vtdigger.org>, Tom Kearney <tkearney@vtdigger.org>
Cc: Paul Heintz <pheintz@vtdigger.org>, Maggie Cassidy <mcassidy@vtdigger.org>, <agalloway@vtdigger.org>, <jwelch@vtdigger.org>, <jreils1954@gmail.com>
Hi all,
It's been a week since I submitted this Commentary (again below, or you can read it here), and I've not yet received a reply of any kind. But that's not my main purpose for writing. I'm pulling a few other people into this string in the event that there are others at VTDigger who may be interested.
Early this past Friday morning, I submitted a press release. I paid for that press release, and was sent my donation receipt. My Discover card shows that VTDigger took my payment.
On Friday evening, I followed up with the "membership@" email address that was on my receipt to inquire about the status of my press release, since it had not been posted even though it'd been submitted well before the 3 p.m. deadline. It was still not posted today, and an hour ago I received a refund, but no further explanation.
Is it common practice for VTDigger to take someone's money, and then literally remain silent (and ignore contact) while VTDigger doesn't fulfill its end of the transaction for days? Circling back to donations for just a second, I am a VTDigger donor. I've donated $75 to VTDigger via prior press release publishing.
About that, I couldn't help but notice a change on your "press releases" landing page. Your language has been updated (screenshots confirm this). There has been no such update on the press release submission page, which I am sure will be confusing to people whose press releases you reject in the future, especially when you've also taken their payment first. I can only assume that you've made the updates to the PR landing page as a result of reading my Commentary and making some new decisions about how VTDigger handles paid PR submissions. If I am wrong about that, please feel free to clarify.
What I find interesting, of course, is that VTDigger is going to make its own decisions about what constitutes a legitimate campaign and organized effort, and will do so based on (presumably) how many people are behind it, and whether you determine a campaign to be a "personal grievance." Or maybe you'll determine it based on your opinion of who is organizing and running the campaign. Or who might not want the campaign to exist in the first place. All of which is wildly subjective, and more or less inappropriate. Will you apply such thinking, and determination about how "critical" something is, to press releases like this one, or this one? Will you accept my press releases if and when I transition the website address to a .org (which I own) and register as a nonprofit with the state of Vermont? When that happens, will you allow me to post press releases for free, as your language indicates?
Of course, above all, what I find unbelievable is that journalists have read what I have written about this effort to tell this story and think that I am voicing a personal grievance about Front Porch Forum. I don't have a personal stake in this, since I am, after all, no longer a member of Front Porch Forum, and I do not expect to be a member again. Regaining access to FPF is not why I am telling this story.
What I have set up, by forming Front Porch Flimflam, is as legitimate as any other campaign effort out there. It is a campaign effort seeking to inform all Vermonters about what Front Porch Forum is really like in how it, as a for-profit corporation, operates -- all while asking for and taking individual, government, and business money from people and communities throughout the entire state. Money which comes from people who believe that Front Porch Forum is something that it is not. People believe something that is false because FPF perpetuates a false story about itself as "essential civic infrastructure" and an open community forum, in order to create a selling point to grow its bottom line.
Telling that story would be "fact-based news that is an indispensable public service," to quote your own fundraising-drive copy on your site, and in today's newsletter and separate fundraising email that I've received.
This is not about me. I don't want the attention, or, frankly, to have to tell this story. I wish it were not happening. But I can't turn my back on it, and think that just because it happened to me and my wife, and we're "just two people," that it doesn't, or shouldn't, matter to everyone in Vermont. I couldn't look my 11-year-old daughter in the eye if I let her believe that this is the way the world should work, and the way that people should treat other people, and that deception like this should be allowed to exist at all, let alone in the name of money and profit. I believe this does matter, and that's why I am telling this story, and trying to reach people in every community in the state. Just like Front Porch Forum exists in every community in the state. And with my limited reach, many people are hearing it, and listening to it, and sharing their own experiences with FPF.
I'm spending my own time and money to build a web presence; reach out digitally across the state of Vermont; literally hit the pavement in multiple Vermont communities to distribute flyers that I personally paid to have printed; continually pursue news coverage; and communicate with those -- among the thousands of people who have visited the site -- who have decided to reach out to me. I'm not doing all of this because I have a "personal grievance" with Front Porch Forum.
And there are thousands of people. Nearly 3,000 people have visited this bare-bones website in just over four weeks since launching, with over 8,000 page views. And this is because of my effort, and money, to tell this story. I'm doing this for, and on behalf of, every Vermonter who supports and/or uses Front Porch Forum, or has had a similar experience with Front Porch Forum, as FPF continues to project an image that does not meet reality, and earns its profit off the deception it perpetuates, and the money -- both private and public -- it takes from Vermonters.
If VTDigger won't allow me to publish a Commentary (i.e., an opinion) or LTE about this, and it won't now allow the campaign I've organized to publish legitimate press releases about legitimate steps the campaign is taking to bring this story to Vermonters, and it won't believe that this is news worthy of its reporting, then what is VTDigger? A shield for Front Porch Forum and its practices? Why?
If I can add a related digression for one moment: what I also find unbelievable is that VTDigger is staking a position as the place where personal grievances are not to be aired about one week after publishing this story about a Brenda Siegel campaign staffer -- which you also allowed to be ended in this way:
The position of governor is often equated to the role as CEO of state government, responsible for employing hundreds of state employees. Asked on Tuesday how he feels his pay dispute reflects Siegel’s ability to perform as governor, he said, "I know she wouldn't be able to."
First of all, the graf that preceded the above closing graf was a Brenda Siegel quote. So in this case, you didn't even identify who "he" was there in the closer. Journalistically, that's bad enough.
But what's worse is that the whole story is practically the definition of a personal grievance, with that person clearly demonstrating throughout that he has an ax to grind about his specific experience. Small claims court is where personal grievances take place. And VTDigger treated it as "front page" news, and gave it nearly 1,000 words and valuable homepage space, and allowed that last graf, and the disgruntled former staffer's assessment of a former gubernatorial candidate, to serve as the last word on this story. That is quite an editorial decision.
Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could tell me why VTDigger has refunded my $25 payment for the press release I submitted last week.
And since we're here, I would also like to know for sure if the Commentary will be published, or if you're going to bury that news and that truth as well.
I also submitted an unrelated LTE this morning based on a recent VTDigger Commentary, thanking the author for her words and hoping that others continue to contribute to changing a narrative. Given the current situation, I think it's fair to ask that you tell me if you are not going to allow me to publish anything on VTDigger.
Thanks,
Kristian
[End of thread as of Dec. 13, 2022]
*****
[Front Porch Flimflam note: Just so there's no confusion, or any attempts made to discredit this story because of other emails I've sent to VTDigger in the past, visit this page if you'd like to see those emails. I'm not trying to hide anything. Some of the emails are questions. Some are requests for further coverage about an issue. Some are passionate pleas for better reporting, based in part in my own career in a newsroom.
All of the emails except for the last one were sent prior to any Commentary or LTE I've ever had published by VTDigger. All of the emails are from a place of wanting VTDigger to serve people better by reporting more fully, and with better, complete information. In some cases, in my opinion, serving people better was going to mean saving people's lives and protecting peoples' health. In none of the cases was I personally attacking, harassing, or otherwise demeaning or belligerent. Here are those emails, if you're interested.]