I didn’t set out to write about Vermont’s 250th anniversary logo. Like many stories at FYIVT, this one started with a reader. Someone reached out and asked a simple question: “What’s the story behind this logo?”

So, I did what reporters are supposed to do. I looked into it. I pulled public records, reviewed commission meeting minutes, analyzed outreach transcripts, and pieced together how the logo was chosen. I wasn’t researching it beforehand. I had no dog in the fight. And I believe the article I published reflects that.

I presented the facts as I found them:

• The Vermont 250th Anniversary Commission reviewed six logo options.
• There are gaps in publicly posted minutes and agendas, despite Vermont’s Open Meeting Law requiring them.
• A breakdown of four outreach webinars showed roughly 30–40% historical content and 60–70% modern themes like diversity, equity, and inclusion.
• And commission members themselves raised concerns about the chosen logo’s color scheme and abstractness, noting it didn’t incorporate red, white, and blue or strongly convey the anniversary’s timeframe of 1776–2026.

No opinions. No calls for petitions. Just reporting.

Why I Agreed to the Interview

When WCAX reached out, I agreed to talk because I believed in good faith journalism. I went in with the best of intentions—open, candid, and curious to see how they would handle it.

I was upfront in that 10-minute conversation:

• I said I was FYIVT’s owner-editor.
• I explained our process—how we analyzed commission transcripts with mechanical tools to avoid injecting bias.
• I noted that readers had pointed out the logo felt like it reflected the last 25 years of Vermont history more than the 225 years before, and I acknowledged that perspective seemed supported by the research.

At no point did I offer aesthetic critiques of the logo’s design or colors. In fact, when color concerns came up, I specifically attributed them to a commission member’s remarks in the minutes—about the absence of red, white, and blue and whether the logo conveyed the spirit of the U.S. semiquincentennial.

“The committee had a good discussion about the logos, and shared that they wished it was clearer about what the anniversary was (1776-2026) and used more explicit colors that connected to the broader national anniversary (red, white, and blue). There was some concern that these logos would increase confusion about what the anniversary is.” 250th_Research_&_Historical_Committee_Minutes_3.20.2024.pdf

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

What WCAX Reported

Their headline read: “Critics take jabs at Vermont semiquincentennial logo.”

If I’d known that was going to be the framing, I probably would have told them to find someone else to interview. That’s not what I wrote about.

From where I sit now, it feels like WCAX was following a breadcrumb trail. They saw FYIVT’s article, presumed I was part of the petition effort, and came to me as though I had some role in starting it. I didn’t. At least not at that time—I might go find it and sign it now. But when I wrote our article, I had no connection to the petition or its organizers. I was doing what reporters do: responding to a reader’s question and investigating.

Here’s what aired:

“David Soulia, a writer for the right-leaning website FYIVT, says the logo ignores other parts of our history and that it’s not green.”

That one sentence managed to misrepresent nearly everything:

1. My role: I’m not “a writer.” I’m the owner-editor, responsible for FYIVT’s editorial standards.
2. Our lean: While some may view FYIVT as right-leaning, our article on the logo was strictly factual, drawn from public records and commission minutes. I even said during the interview that I strive to stay as neutral as possible.
3. The “not green” remark: I never said the logo lacked green. On tape, I attributed color concerns to a commission member, recalling their comments about red, white, and blue and whether the design reflected the national 250th anniversary. My own feelings about the palette were never offered because I don’t have any.

The WCAX report gives viewers the impression that I had an aesthetic gripe about the logo when I did not.

And unlike FYIVT, where we link to every source so readers can verify our reporting for themselves, WCAX did not include a link back to our original article—not even to our home page. Viewers had no way to read the piece they were hearing about and judge its tone and content for themselves. That omission speaks volumes.

Even in the clip of our Zoom interview, they cropped out my on-screen name tag where “FYIVT.com” was visible. Whether intentional or not, the end result left viewers with no way to see the publication or its reporting in context.

I’ve since asked Calvin Cutler, the reporter who interviewed me, for a copy of our Zoom call. We’ll see if he provides it.

Why FYIVT Exists

This is one of the reasons FYIVT exists. Too often, modern journalism simplifies, labels, and reframes instead of simply reporting. Our commitment is different: regardless of whether we’re speaking with someone left-leaning, right-leaning, or anywhere in between, what you say is what we will put out—honestly and truthfully, without narrative bending or selective soundbites.

We believe readers deserve the full picture, not a caricature of it.

The Takeaway

This isn’t about hurt feelings. It’s about trust—and it’s about process.

So here’s a story to share with you: an experience of what it’s like to be reported on after doing an interview with mainstream media. This gives you an insider’s view of what was actually said, and what made it to press.

You’ll never find this kind of selective editing at FYIVT. We simply don’t do that. Ever.

To be fair, I don’t know whether Calvin wrote the story as it aired or whether an editor back at WCAX cut it apart and reshaped it into something else. I’ve always liked him, and I’d like to believe he didn’t pull a move like that intentionally. But what I do know is this: the final product WCAX aired was lacking—at best.

The story WCAX ran wasn’t just inaccurate. It reinforced why independent journalism matters in the first place.

Our original article remains available here: How Vermont’s 250th Anniversary Logo Was Chosen—and What’s Missing. You can read it yourself and decide whether it reflects “right-leaning ideology”—or just journalism.

Because we believe Vermonters deserve the full picture.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram

#fyivt #MediaAccountability #Vermont250 #IndependentJournalism

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!