Is it News, a”Hot- Topic”, or an infomercial ? Profit motives coming to a station near you…

There has been much talk about conflict of interest in political news lately, and it’s laughingly sad to see what has become of past and present politicians when presented with “golden” opportunities. Connections are everything, and the general public rarely is privy to the relationships – corporate and personal- that reveal and significantly alter that “trusted “ representation.

Profit motive has corrupted many a politician, and I’m afraid that in today’s society, it corrupts far too many self-proclaimed “journalists” who crave ratings, access and perhaps monetary gain from the guests they book. Unlike government, however, there is little disclosure required or pursued when it comes to modern journalism, and what has often been compared to the “brotherhood mob-like comraderie ” exibited between journalists often prevents other’s from reporting what they know about their colleagues.

So what exactly makes a “conflict of interest”?

“A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, a politician, or an executive/director of a corporation, has competing professional and/or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties fairly. “

More generally , conflict of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit. Usually without disclosure to the public and colleagues.

While in the past, this term has been used almost exclusively to describe situations found with politicians and executives, it is increasingly popping up with regards to journalists and talk show hosts.

It was recently revealed by an ardent, but suspicious, listener that a well-known talk show host in the US, who continually revisted the same”hot” topic with a newly published author, was only doing so because they shared the same publisher and he was being awarded significant bonuses in plugging the new authors book. His listeners truly trusted his recommendations, and he lost all credibility when his profit motive was revealed.

In Canadian radio , there have been several incidents where financial radio programs have aired supposed “hot” stock recommendations, without revealing to the listeners that the companies being recommended had paid for that plug. There was no real due diligence on the part of the talk show host, and what listeners thought was an unbiased opinion, was really a financial infomercial for companies that were unproven and dubious at best.

As talk radio draws in a substantial portion of their audience from political shows and these show’s audiences drive their advertising, they are far more likely to keep their proven format as intact as possible.

         However, if a talk show host has a personal or corporate relationship that is not revealed to their listeners, and they stand to potentially profit handsomely from booking certain guests and pushing certain opinions, using that platform – said host is engaged in a clear case of self-dealing.

Much debate occurred recently in certain circles when ex-Liberal minister-cum-CKNW Talk Show host , Christy Clark, discussed public transportation and commuting issues regarding Translink and potential new skytrain routes, with several local political guests.

Little did many of her audience know that she is a partner with her (Liberal with a Big-L ) husband, Mark Marissen, in their strategic communications company , Burrard Communications, AND their company has been contracted to supply lobbying services for Translink. Was she talking about the subject because its important to local citizens in need of transit, or because her company is being paid to do so?  In effect, she is still a government employee of sorts, as long as her company continues to provide lobbying services for crown corporations. Much credibility to anything political coming out of her mouth is lost when this relationship comes into play – one is not likely to bite the hand(s) that feed you, or risk any buttering up going on with provincial and municipal politicians.

The best way to remove a conflict of interest is to simply avoid them entirely; if a host or journalist can easily be proven to have financial stakes in the success, change or growth of an given project or business, he or she should never should have taken to speak on the topic.

Further, they could  have and should have excused themselves from taking part in the first place , as they would have recognized the conflict of interest, even if others didn’t.

Integrity of electronic journalism is almost an oxymoron these days. In the end, journalist and hosts will HURT their own ratings because they lose credibility with their audience, the smarter of whom just tune them out.

The next time you are listening to your talk radio program of choice, or reading an editorial piece, you might want to question the motive behind it.

I’m Laila Yuile, and this is, how I see it.