Opinion: Conflict of Interest?
Newshounds, a site I have heretofore not linked to because the site, like Olbermannwatch, plays fast and loose with the facts, today notes something that I never thought I would see again; Tom Adkins on Bulls and Bears.
Tom Adkins is a contributor to FNC. Adkins has one other disctinction which isn’t too well known. Since last June, he’s been married to FNC’s Brenda Buttner. Buttner is the host of Bulls and Bears.
I’m a regular viewer of FNC’s Business Block so I had noticed that Adkins, though not a Bulls and Bears regular like Gary B. Smith for example, had not made an appearance on the show in quite a while. I didn’t think much of it until I read that he and Buttner were married last year. Then his abscence made sense.
So imagine my surprise to see Adkins turn up on Bulls and Bears today. Doesn’t FNC have a conflict of interest policy regarding its talent being married to people they may cover? NBC does. The most famous example is Andrea Mitchell and Alan Greenspan. She can’t go anywhere near him or The Fed in terms of covering a story. Adkins shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near Buttner’s program.
Brenda Buttner isn’t “covering” Atkins. She is hosting a program, and he is merely acting as a commentator, opining on various investment or business-related issues. If Atkins, his actions or policies were the subject of discussion, (as is the case with Alan Greenspan), of course there would be a problem. But B & B is just a gabfest with a bunch of business types commenting on the policies of OTHERS and the behavior of the market. With the exception of the data which of course is presented as historical fact, it’s ALL opinion and analysis.
Comment by Missy — January 28, 2006 @ 10:54 pm
FNC is a conflict of interest within it’s self.
Comment by Uncle Sam — January 28, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
Kiran Chetry and Chris Knowles are married and they appear on Fox and Friends together all the time. But I guess that is a different circumstance.
Comment by Anon — January 29, 2006 @ 5:21 am
True, Anon, but unlike Chetry, Buttner has both a conscience and a brain, so she should know better.
Comment by The Real Deal — January 29, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
Of course you can suspend ethical imperatives when “it’s just a gabfest.” Don’t be so 20th century.
Brit Hume and his wife produce, staff and edit all political show content on FNC and invite the commentators — even the handful that don’t hail from the company bullpen.
What passes for real news is largely indistinguishable from gabfests. Uh, I mean, “insights.”
Comment by steve — January 29, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
Someone at Newshounds made a good point… Is the Connie/Maury show thus unethical?
Quite frankly, if it’s done well and ethically, I don’t care if you’re related to each other. And shoot, she told him to shut up! :) I don’t really see it as a conflict of interest.
Kiran Chetry is married to Chris Knowles even. And I’m sure Kimberly Guilfoyle, as a legal analyst, will show up sometime with Bill Hemmer (a previous love). If it’s professional, and it doesn’t impair their judgement, go ahead.
Comment by Charles — January 29, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
Guys, I believe the point is that Brenda isn’t “covering” Tom Adkins as would Andrea Mitchell be “covering” her husband Alan Greenspan. Brenda, Connie, Kiran and anyone else could include their entire families on their programs and it shouldn’t be a problem, as long as none of these people are creating news or implementing the policy being discussed. Remember, that was Spud’s original premise - that some sort of conflict arose because Brenda was “covering” her husband. Again, Adkins is making no policy himself but is merely acting as a commentator, as are Connie and Maury.
Comment by Missy — January 29, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
I see no problem with a married couples working together. Just because NBC has a problem with it, does not mean other networks have to follow suite. I did not even know Brenda was married to Adkins, so for me it did not effect anything at all.
Comment by noelle — January 30, 2006 @ 10:22 am
The only problem I have is that Brenda, “the hot redhead” Buttner, chose that Michael Bolten girly boy to be her bedmate. I cacelled her trip with me to Fantasy Island upon hearing her mention HIM as her hubby this past week. It’s just that “babes go for the boys who look wild” thing again. Well, I have to go now because I must purchase a new pocket protecter before Wally Cox and I head out on our morning “hottie” hunt which will wind up as an effort in futility. Maybe if I only had long, messed up hair? Naa!
Comment by Roger C. — January 30, 2006 @ 10:55 am
I don’t see a problem with it…as long as it doesn’t get in the way of reporting/facts then have at it. Off topic, what happened to Kimberly hosting on FNC?
Comment by anonymous — January 30, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
Ya, What ever happened to Kimberly hosting The Line-Up??
Comment by noelle — January 31, 2006 @ 10:27 am
First of all, NOBODY who writes for NewsHounds is a regular viewer of anything on FNC. They catch one thing here and there and make up the rest.
That being said, Missy hit the nail on the head. Brenda’s not “covering” her husband. He’s on there to give his opinion, not as the subject of any report. And like Charles said, she told him to shut up… so yeah she’s showing REAL favoritism there.
Dan Abrams interviews his father and talks about cases on which he works all the time on his show. (Assuming Dan still has a show, I haven’t turned to that channel in ages…) Isn’t THAT a conflict?? But just because it’s on FNC it’s all of a sudden wrong and unethical? Please…
Comment by OverHere — January 31, 2006 @ 11:25 am
I read that the first newsreaders on CNN were married to each other so in that case it goes back to the earliest days of cable news.
Here in NZ co newsreaders a few years ago were married to each other and maybe there are a lot or other relations situations.
But what if is clearly or ambigously mentioned that there is no relation when there is?.
Comment by Rob — January 31, 2006 @ 1:03 pm