Is John Tory in a conflict of interest with his daily drive-time radio show on CFRB?
This past week, the question became impossible to ignore when he “interviewed” George Smitherman, now a declared candidate for mayor, in CFRB’s studio.
Tory, for now, is playing coy for obvious tactical reasons. And when he does announce, I’m anticipating he’ll relinquish his mic, in the way that Sue-Ann Levy temporarily vacated her Toronto Sun column to run provincially.
The issue is what happens between now and then.
His testy on-air exchange with Smitherman — who resigned as energy minister over potential conflicts between his government responsibilities and his political goals — should cause Torontonians to wonder whether Tory’s current on-air statements are journalistic or partisan in intent.
I’m not trying to be a prude about the early innings of a long race.
Everyone knows that megacity campaigns begin well before the earliest formal declaration date (January 4, 2010). Further, there’s nothing wrong with political self-promotion: after all, these individuals are in the business of putting ideas out into the world and no one should expect them to take vows of silence.
For context, it’s worth remembering that David Miller announced his bid for mayor half a year before the start date, and no one yelped about him resigning his council seat so as not to foment confusion in the minds of voters.
Likewise, Tory’s fingerprints were all over David Pecaut’s Toronto City Summit Alliance, which went public in 2002 and provided him with an opportunity to debut before the urban chattering classes.
But then there was Friends of Barbara Hall (FOBH), the Smitherman-hatched scheme to build a launching pad for her campaign and fundraising efforts. Intended to elbow aside Miller, FOBH turned out to be a lethal depth charge because it raised and then spent money on her campaign before the formal start date specified by the municipal elections act.
Here’s my concern about the radio show.
With Smitherman running, he’ll be facing reporters’ questions about his take on municipal business. His answers, in turn, will make news and thus become fodder for commentators, Tory among them. If Tory’s plan is indeed to run, his punditry is not disinterested.
Trouble is, his listeners don’t know. Only he knows for sure, and his studied ambiguity on this matter is problematic.
It’s also quantifiable. There’s a precise monetary value to the air time he commands every afternoon. If Tory does throw his name in the hat, he will have dedicated a measurable amount of prime radio time broadcasting opinions about the race and local matters.
In hindsight, could that block be regarded as an in-kind campaign contribution that was incurred before the starting gun goes off?
The related concern is that by holding off an announcement, he keeps potential donors sitting on their wallets (or at least on their promissory notes). Again, by continuing with the show without stating his intentions, he gains a tactical advantage over Smitherman.
At minimum, Tory should forego any coverage of campaign and city business while he’s making up his mind. Better yet, he should immediately disclose his plans: run and hand over the show, or state unequivocally that he’s going to bow out and then go to work on critiquing Smitherman’s candidacy.
John Tory has always stressed transparency and fairness in public service.
Now is the time for him to raise the blinds…just like Smitherman did.
21 comments
“[J]ournalistic or partisan in intent”? Well, it IS the John Tory Show. Talk radio hosts are not known for their lack of partisanship. IMO, the more partisan he is on the show, the better. Right now, we hear “studied ambiguity” about his intentions. But once he declares himself, we will hear nothing but studied ambiguity about the issues.
Doesn’t stop Andre Arthur.
http://www.maximebernier.com/en/2009/05/arthur/
If Adam Vaughan and Adam Giambrone can host TV shows beside their main job, it seems to me Tory can host a radio gig *as* his main job. To me, Mr. Vaughan and Admiral Giambrone’s activities (and Arthur’s) are more offensive because public officials should be questioned by the media, not acting as questioners – not to mention that incumbents get too easy a ride in this town as it is.
John, would you draw a distinction between Tory’s show and the CP24 shows hosted by Adam Vaughan and now Adam Giambrone, or in your view would the same arguments apply?
What if he is genuinely unsure? Your thinking on this issue is remarkably black and white.
There’s an important but subtle difference between opinionated and self-serving. You can have a very strong point of view and be disinterested in a formal sense. And yes, I am not a big fan of politician-led talk shows, which would fall into the latter category.
Remember the “Mayor Mel” City show?
Lines have long been blurred between ethical journalistic reporting and talk shows. ALL the breaks go to the incumbents and power brokers: The Adam Vaughan show, the Adam Giambrone show are just typical self serving political mechanisms.
Has anyone yet questioned Giambrone’s use of public tax money and assets to do his self promotions?
We live in an aristocracy, not a democracy my friends…
According to Joe Pantalone, a conflict of interest arises only when you actually get the job (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/717221–insider-to-design-ex-hotel). However, during the long courtship period, even if you are making decisions about your soon-to-be-employer, a conflict doesn’t exist.
So under Pantalone’s reasoning, Tory would be in a conflict only after being formally sworn in as mayor, and he will vigorously defend the integrity of anyone who suggests otherwise.
While I think the author raises legitimate concerns regarding how laws trying to limit undue influence might be skirted by potential candidates, I think the first order of business is looking at how CURRENT office holders are leveraging tools that give them undue advantages over challengers. Prior to asking whether Tory (who is not currently a municipal politician) is in a conflict of interest, this writer (and Spacing) should be focusing on the whether there is a conflict of interet regarding CURRENT municipal politicians (such as Mayor Miller and Councillor Vaughn) who are hosting their own shows while holding office (in addition to sending out “newsletters” and what not). The most egregious example of this in my view is Councillor Giambrone who as Chair of the TTC is in a position to draw on public resources (street car not to mention the time of a number of TTC staff) for a show that I think many would see as grandstanding rather than as a legitimate effort to provide info to the public.
Tory is not at present a municipal politician. One might not like his views. One might not like the fact that he has, via his job, a platform/soapbox from which to articulate those views and enhance a possible campaign. That said, there is a cut-off day after which current office holders can’t send out newsletters, and this should also apply to such exercises as hosting a show and what not.
“Has anyone yet questioned Giambrone’s use of public tax money and assets to do his self promotions?”
Something that struck me as particularly odd is that unless I’m missing something Giambrone appears to be using his city staff to coordinate the audience for his show. See:
http://twitter.com/Adam_Giambrone/status/5429253131
Spacing’s readers/cimmenters are usually on the ball, but this is an odd discussion. The intent of Miller, Vaughan and Gimabrone are not being hidden. they have a show because they are politicians in power. Vaughan’s is different than most because of his media background.
Giambrone is a difficult one to gauge. Anyone that pays attention to city hall heard about his show back in the summer. Its been an idea kicking around for some time, and was in development long before Miller gave his goodbye speech. Its just unlucky optics on Giamrbone’s part. Having talked to TTC staff about this, from what I can gather Citytv paid for the driver of the vehicle. No other costs were incurred by the show or the City. It might be a tad crass, but not worth getting hot over.
As for Tory: his intetions are not clear, and if you don’t think he’s made up his mind yet than I have a rice paddy to sell you in Arizona. He should declare it, but his kingmaster Kinsella is keeping Tory’s candidacy locked up for as long as possible.
What show does Miller have? If it’s that City one, it isn’t his – he’s interviewed by the host and callers. Just as Mel was before him, and the Chief’s are on Ask the Chief.
I was on John Tory’s show recently, and could not get over the misinformed rant that preceded my actually getting on air. Half of my time I spent trying to correct Tory’s bad info and spin.
If Tory is going to expose hiimself for all to hear on radio, journalists need to go at him full throttle whether he is a declared candidate or not.
Similarly, the other political “hosts” need to be treated as the politicians they are, not as fellow journalists.
Finally, would John Tory even have a radio show if he wasn’t going to be a candidate?
Word is that Tory is this close to kicking off a column in t.o.night. Yes, really. Arguably making this arrangement even more absurd is the fact that his plan would be to take a leave from the paper once he officially declares.
Sorry Maloney… but your “information” doesn’t jive with the published reports about the TTC Chair’s show, which in addition to the driver also apparently included costs for special constables to keep people from boarding the streetcar. Also, the issue isn’t just the resources…
Steve,
What did you have to correct? What was he ranting about?
Maloney,
So what you are saying is that, at worst, what Tory is doing is as bad as Giambrone, Vaughan and mayor Miller. Do you really believe that just because John may be an undeclared candidate that listeners suspend their faculties? Intent has nothing to do with it. Is he fortunate to have such a pulpit, if his intentions are to run, absolutely. Does that advantage overcome to media attention that incumbents can generate, or the benefits of incumbency itself? That is open for debate. The fact Spacing is making an issue of this, while the city faces tremendous issues itself, is regrettable.
The only thing that really matters is where he stands on issues.
PS. I am surprised no one mentioned the CITY SUV that follows the streetcar around for Giambrone’s show.
Seems to me that Lorinc is trying to cast aspersions where someone is still a private person entitled to do whatever he wants and as Munroe says we all have the same right and the right to criticize what he says but not his right to say them. I think this article is particularly misplaced given the obvious self promotion Giambrone is engaged in and the even more glaring self promotion and image making coming out of Smitherman. Smitherman is a declared candidate for Mayor yet using his public profile as an MPP to in a defacto campaign while stating he will not resign his seat or give up his paycheck until March next year. That seems to me to be a conflict of interest and a misuse of public funds. He should resign immediately.
I regularly report on companies that trade publicly. If I happen to have invested in those companies, what I write may influence the value of the stock, which in turn could affect my own decision to invest or divest, as circumstances warrant. For that reason, news organizations often have very strict rules restricting the investment activities of business reporters.
There’s a similar dynamic at play here. Anyone who wants to be a candidate is perfectly free to publicly promote their ideas and indeed they should take every opportunity to do so — that’s why we have elections. But let them be forthright about their motives. I believe in full disclosure for journalists — and Tory is a journalist right now — specifically because we/they have the ability to shape public opinion. That’s a weighty responsibility, and should be treated as such.
What bothers me about this “trend” of politician types hosting shows (or having regular columns) is the fact that it restructures the relationship that most people think should be at play between our politicians and our media outlets.
Most of us still think the media’s role is not only to communicate decisions about the politician’s views and positions, but also to question and critique these and allow for dissenting views. (Yeah, I know that reduced media staffing make this harder and harder to achieve.) Once the politician becomes a “host” with his/her own show, or a regular guest on certain show, the media outlet is likely to be much less interested in the questionning, critiquing and spotlighting of dissenting views. Why? Because the politician is no longer a subject of inquiry but a “PROPERTY” to be exploited. And the media outlet who owns this “property” is less likely look critically at what this property is doing (or give voice to dissenting views) because that would of course devalue the property. As well, the media outlet has to maintain good terms with this property given the need to produce future product (whereas dissenters and protesters are a dime a dozen).
The media outlet loves the setup because it can produce cheap content. The politician loves the setup because it not only enhances their profile but essentially gives them a “free pass” card with the media outlet in question. The only one who loses is the public who is being fed cheap infotainment under the guise of political discord. As a piece of spin-doctoring, the setup is pure genius, a big step forward from the days when politicians talked with reporters about their favorite local eateries (or recipes) or went on TV to play sax (or piano) solos. In fact, you could call this setup the spin that keeps on spinning.
Yes, once again, I think the author has raised some legitimate questions…but the issue that takes priority is the way CURRENT office holders are using the media.
… error above… “bbeing fed cheap infotainment under the guise of political DISCUSSION” (not discord)… I should probably read these b4 posting.
“Tory is this close to kicking off a column in t.o.night”
Does anyone actually read t.o.night?
@Dave McDonald – city councillors don’t give up their (substantial) stipends during election campaigns. Forcing challengers to give up their jobs is one of the many ways incumbents are bullet proofed in this town.
@Chris Tindal – good spot re: use of staff members. Not only are the general public denied the use of this streetcar, but it is now a venue for handpicked audience members.