Ethics and the Mass Media

I think I have a reasonably well tuned moral compass. I work at making sure that my life decisions are ethical ones. I have long agreed with John Ralston Saul who suggested that ethics are like muscles - we need to exercise them regularly so that when we are faced with the really tough decisions, we make the right ethical decision without hesitation. Having said that - I am a bit confused over the recent tempest in the teapot known as the CBC. With the understanding that for many people the words ethics and media being used in the same sentence verges on creating an oxymoron, our mainstream media has been buzzing with the firing of Evan Solomon by the CBC because of ethical issues.

By all reports Mr. Solomon knew someone who had some expensive art to sell and he knew people who had money to buy expensive art. He created a small business where he got paid for hooking up the person who had something to sell with at least one person who wanted to buy. Because the paintings were very valuable, his commission was substantial. When it became known that he was doing this, he was fired.

The issue appears to be that he violated the public's trust in him as a recognizable public affairs/political correspondent  because he used his professional contacts to arrange for the sale. That is - if he had not been employed by a national news organization he would have never have met either the seller or the buyer. He used his contacts to make money. The suggestion is that in doing so, he also may have been "gentler" while interviewing the buyer so as to not spoil the deal. There is no proof, not even the suggestion that he did, but the possibility that he could have, made Mr. Solomon too toxic of an employee to be kept on.

Should  Mr Solomon been aware of the optics of his activities and decided not to do it? Probably yes. Did he know these people because of his status in the political world? Without a doubt. Was it unethical? I am not too sure. Ethics are frequently a private matter sorted out (at least for me) in the wee dark hours of the night. They are frequently deeply personal. If Mr. Solomon thought (as he said he did) about whether or not he could act as a broker for fine art and still do his job without conflict, I think we should believe him or at the very least take some time to think about it.

The fundamental error in people's over-reaction as to Mr. Solomon's actions and subsequent firing is that we chose to believe that the news is neutral. In fact Peter Mansbridge , the CBC"s anchor for the 10:00 national news, has a commercial airing currently airing on that station that suggests that all he does is read the news. How naive of anyone to believe that! How Mansbridge reads the item, where the item is placed within that hour, or whether or not it gets even reported upon are all the result of someone's bias.  There are countless examples of bias within all media whether they be labelled as mainstream or "independent".  Was Mike Duffy's reporting completely neutral when as reporter for CTV he discussed national affairs? Why didn't anyone criticize him when he shortly after retiring, he was appointed to the senate and started to act as the Prime Minister's shill?  Didn't he get the Senate job because of his previous activities? Wasn't he useful to the Conservative Party because of his contacts developed over years of working for CTV? Why isn't anyone crying foul? The only difference between Mr. Duffy and Mr. Solomon is that the former waited until he retired to trade in on his contacts, while the latter did not. At the risk of offending someone, it is difficult for me to believe that in the months before Mr. Duffy's retirement that there were not discussions as to how to use his work trained skills and contacts.

We live in a world where we are told, with some justification, that networking is critical. It is why social media is so powerful and so useful. To expect a semi-public person such as Evan Solomon to play by a different set of rules than other people is hypocritical. He is allowed to make a living. He needed perhaps to be more public about his activities, but it is not a moral crime to use one's contacts to make money. Like it or not - that is what we all do in some form or another. I am not convinced that we should punish the man. Give him a slap on the wrist? Sure. But to ruin his career opportunities for life seems a bit harsh.