On March 18, 2025, VTDigger and Vermont Public published a joint article titled “Democrats willing to concede spending clash if Gov. Scott extends motel stays,” detailing a political standoff between Vermont’s Democratic legislative leaders and Republican Governor Phil Scott.
The article framed the Democrats as pragmatic and compassionate, willing to sacrifice $14.9 million in proposed spending to protect vulnerable Vermonters in the state’s hotel-motel program, while portraying Scott as rigid and uncaring, vetoing a budget adjustment bill over cost concerns.
However, a letter from the Scott administration, released the following day on March 19, reveals critical omissions and a consistent pattern of bias in the reporting by these outlets—bias that favors Vermont Democrats and undermines journalistic integrity.
The Narrative: Democrats as Heroes, Scott as Villain
The VTDigger/Vermont Public article paints a clear picture: Democratic leaders Jill Krowinski and Phil Baruth are depicted as reluctantly conceding to Scott’s demands, sacrificing funding for affordable housing, flood relief, and disability programs to secure a modest extension of the hotel-motel program for the unhoused.
The piece emphasizes their “single request” to protect “children, pregnant women, disabled Vermonters, veterans, and those fleeing domestic violence,” tugging at readers’ heartstrings.
Scott, meanwhile, is cast as the antagonist, denouncing the program as a “failed” and “too expensive” endeavor, with his veto threatening to displace nearly 600 adults and over 160 children as early as April 1.
The article amplifies this narrative with selective quotes, such as Rep. Robin Scheu’s dismissal of Scott’s compromise proposal as an “eleventh hour” plan unworthy of “serious consideration.” The lack of response from Scott’s office—despite “multiple requests for comment”—is noted, subtly implying evasiveness or indifference. This framing aligns with a recurring theme in Vermont media: Democrats as thoughtful problem-solvers, Scott as an obstinate barrier to progress.
The Omission: Scott’s Perspective and Offers of Compromise
Contrast this with the Scott administration’s letter, penned by Secretary of Administration Sarah Clark on March 19, 2025. The letter directly challenges the article’s narrative, accusing Democratic leaders of spreading “misinformation” and revealing that the administration had offered “three different compromises” to address the budget adjustment dispute—compromises conspicuously absent from the VTDigger/Vermont Public piece.
Clark notes that Scott’s team proposed keeping the most vulnerable in the hotel-motel program through June 30, aligning with the Democrats’ stated priority, while shifting non-urgent spending to the FY26 budget—a historically standard practice for budget adjustment acts (BAAs).
Moreover, Clark expresses frustration at being “uninvited” to testify before the House Appropriations Committee, a detail that undermines the article’s implication of Scott’s unwillingness to engage.
The letter outlines a consistent stance—articulated since January—that the BAA should focus on technical adjustments, not new spending or policy shifts, especially amid federal funding uncertainty. This perspective, grounded in fiscal responsibility and voter priorities like property tax relief, is entirely excluded from the VTDigger/Vermont Public account.
Consistent Bias and the Implications
This is not an isolated incident. VTDigger and Vermont Public have a track record of favoring Democratic narratives while marginalizing Scott’s positions. Past coverage, such as the 2023 budget veto saga, similarly highlighted Democratic efforts to override Scott’s vetoes while downplaying his rationale—concerns over unsustainable spending and tax hikes.
The outlets often amplify Democratic voices, like Krowinski and Baruth, while relegating Scott’s responses to brief mentions or, as in this case, omitting them entirely until forced to react.
Such selective reporting violates core journalistic principles: fairness, balance, and truthfulness. By presenting only one side of the story—Democrats as magnanimous, Scott as callous—VTDigger and Vermont Public shape public perception rather than inform it.
The omission of Scott’s compromise offers and the context of his veto rationale isn’t mere oversight; it’s a deliberate choice to bolster the Democratic narrative. This is particularly egregious given the outlets’ reliance on public trust and, in Vermont Public’s case, taxpayer funding.
Why This Matters
The stakes are high. Vermont’s media landscape is small, and VTDigger and Vermont Public wield outsized influence. When they consistently tilt coverage to favor one party—here, the Democrats, who lost their supermajority in 2024—they distort democratic discourse.
Readers are left with a skewed understanding of policy debates, unable to fairly assess Scott’s fiscal conservatism against Democratic spending priorities. This isn’t journalism; it’s advocacy masquerading as news.
By omitting Scott’s compromises and framing Democrats as conceding from a position of weakness (despite their inability to override), VTDigger and Vermont Public craft a morality tale rather than a factual report. This undermines public confidence in media and erodes the ability of Vermonters to engage in informed debate.
Comments