Whether You Like It or Not: More on Public Masturbation

The news of Vermont State Senator and Lieutenant Governor candidate Ed Flanagan being accused of masturbating at the Burlington YMCA continues to rile the waters of Vermont’s media (just take at look at the comments in my previous post).

This morning, I had the opportunity to hear WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show, in which the host of the show decided to unleash an editorial castigating the Burlington Free Press and the rest of the Vermont media for its poor handling of this issue. Specifically, Johnson was annoyed by the fact that the Free Press didn’t include specific information about Flanagan’s “brain injuries” that would have, in effect, both convicted and defended Flanagan of the alleged behaviors. Johnson, for example, cited a website that documented the “inability to control personal desires” as a symptom of the brain injuries that Flanagan is apparently a victim of.

“Why,” Johnson asked, “didn’t they at least quote from this website?”

Well, Mr. Johnson, because Flanagan is denying the allegations. And, in a news story, it’s just supposed to be about the facts as they exist at the time the facts are being written.

Here, for your reading pleasure, is my letter to Mark Johnson:

Hey Mark,

Your commentary today regarding Ed Flanagan was off base for a couple of reasons. The news story in the Free Press that you were upset with was, indeed, a “news” story. Thus, it is supposed to rely upon the facts as they exist at the time of the writing. And those facts are (as they continue to be): Flanagan has been accused of lewd acts (yes, masturbating in public is a lewd act) and Flanagan is denying it. Given those facts, even mentioning his car accident is a bit far afield. Flanagan is, again, denying it.

In your commentary today, you took the Free Press (and the Vermont media in general) to task for not citing brain injury experts or websites to help “explain” Flanagan’s condition and, as a result, the alleged actions. But if the media did what you are suggesting they do — and what you did today on your show — they would be both convicting Flanagan and defending him. Those are not the roles of the media — unless, perhaps, we’re talking about the editorial page.

Flanagan has had many opportunities to address this issue and not once has he cited his brain injury. Instead, he has totally denied these allegations and declared his intentions to continue to seek higher office. Thus, in the strict “who, what, where and why” of news journalism, his accident and his injuries from it are not relevant to this allegation.

If, however, Flanagan, his family, or his lawyer or spokesperson made a statement regarding his brain injury in relation to this allegation then the story and the role of the media would certainly change.

I know you don’t want to go here but I can’t help but thinking that your verbal editorial today had much to do with the cozy relationship between what I’ve often referred to as the “power elite” in Vermont. Specifically, your Flanagan editorial today seemed like an inappropriate rush to defend a fellow member of the political, economic and media “elite.”

If, as you seem to be suggesting, the Vermont media should be including possible explanations for alleged behavior that is being denied in their news stories, I’d invite you to set up shop at the Barre courthouse some morning and offer some commentary on all the possible defenses and explanations for those being paraded in front of the judge. If you followed your Flanagan rationale, I bet it would sound something like this: “Oh, there goes Joe Vermont, he’s pleading not guilty to DUI but we all know he comes from five generations of alcoholics…”

It’s a very slippery slope, indeed.

All the best,

Michael Colby