Brunt, on his conflict of interest
October 27, 2009 · 29 Comments
What a privilege it was to listen to Prime Time Sports last night and hear Stephen Brunt, that giant of sports journalism – no, check that, that giant of Olympic boosterism — explain to us why it is entirely appropriate for him to participate in the promotion of the Vancouver Games, despite the small fact, he is, ahem, a journalist working for The Globe and Mail.
Brunt, in case you missed it, was selected, and agreed, to carry the Olympic torch during its promotional relay parade across the country. CTV announced last week that 26 of its broadcasters, many of whom will cover the Games for the network, and also Brunt, will be torchbearers.
This, of course, represents an outrageous conflict of interest. These people are now part of the Olympic marketing machine, but also will be expected to report and comment independently and objectively on the Vancouver Games.
But Brunt doesn’t see a problem with this.
Never mind that The Toronto Star and Toronto Sun published editorials denouncing the decision by CTV. Never mind that several sports writers including an Edmonton Journal columnist, the Toronto Star’s Olympic reporter and the newspaper’s media columnist wrote pieces critical of CTV and Brunt. Never mind that Alison Korn, an Olympic rower, wrote an opinion piece for Sun Media raising the issue of journalistic ethics; never mind any of it — Brunt knows better.
“Look, I hate to break people’s hearts and tell them there’s no Santa Clause,” he told Prime Time host Bob McCown. “But this is a commercial endeavor. The torch relay, God love it, which is going to make people tear up and is a lovely thing, and a way of including people in the Olympic process, is sponsored. And it is corporate and underwritten. And spots were sold as part of the sponsorship package. . . . This is all part of the machinery of the Olympic Games.”
And the machinery, of course, includes Brunt. If you have a problem with this, he says, blame VANOC CEO John Furlong, who made the relay spots available to the media rights holders.
“If people don’t like it, phone John Furlong,” Brunt said. “But you should probably tell him how to pay for his Games otherwise.”
Obviously the notion of politely declining Furlong’s invitation didn’t occur to Brunt.
“You don’t see an ethics problem?” asked McCown.
“No,” Brunt said, “because nobody is telling me what to say or what to do.”
In other words: Ignore my conflict of interest and trust me. I’m above all that.
Brunt’s leg of the relay will take place in Newfoundland where he owns a summer home. He says his participation in the 300-metre jog clears the ethics bar because he will be on assignment for the Globe, reporting on the experience of carrying the torch.
McCown raised an obvious question.
“What do you think the experience will be?” he asked. “I ran, I got tired, I handed the torch to somebody else and went out and had a beer? How much of an experience do you think it will be? Do you think you will find Jesus on the way?”
“I don’t know,” Brunt said. “Maybe I’ll hate it. Maybe I’ll come back just as cynical as I am now.”
Oh, yes, the cynical guy, who just finished explaining why he needed to help VANOC promote the Games and described the torch relay as a “lovely thing” that “makes people tear up.”
One bit of news did come out. Brunt says other Globe journalists also will carry the torch and presumably to write about it. He seemed miffed that he was the only Globe writer included in last week’s CTV release.
“I’d like to thank my friends at CTV for putting my name on the press release as though I’m the only newspaper guy doing this . . . ,” he complained. “There’s quite a number.”
Don’t be upset, Steve. Be proud. You’re doing your bit for the Globe, CTV, VANOC and IOC.
Mike Toth dropped by Sportsnet
Sources says Rogers Sportsnet has decided not to renew the contract of Mike Toth, who works for Rogers’ Toronto radio station, Fan590, and filled in as a Sportsnet Connected anchor.
Toth, a Sportsnet veteran, was suspended by the network a few years ago after a run-in with a producer and was then re-assigned to the radio station.
A brainless decision
A large segment of the sports media in the United States views pro hockey as a backward, fringe operation worthy, perhaps, of an anthropological study, but hardly something to be taken seriously as an important sport.
If you wonder why that is, consider how the NHL handled the Mike Richards hit on David Booth last weekend.
The league did nothing – no suspension — despite the fact the Florida Panther forward was blindsided with a shot to the head, carried off the ice with a concussion and taken to hospital.
Richards, the Philadelphia Flyers captain, said he was merely trying to separate Booth from the puck.
The problem with that ridiculous excuse is, Booth didn’t have the puck. He’d passed it off. And then he was hit, full force, from the side and behind by Richards, with a shoulder to the head.
If you’re a hockey traditionalist, you hate what Richards did to Booth, because there is no tradition associated with it.
It’s not part of the game. You didn’t see these attacks in the 1970s or 1980s. Sure, there were fisticuffs, stick fights and big body checks, but this sort of predatory head hunting started in the 1990s.
I suspect the Scott Stevens hits in the 1990s, particularly on Eric Lindros, most of which were clean, inspired the lowlife element coming into the league. Colby Armstrong of the Atlanta Thrashers comes to mind immediately.
If these attacks continue, the NHL will end up with a bunch of retired players walking around with permanent headaches. Or they’ll be scratching their heads and wondering what day of the week it is.
The long-term effects of the trauma are devastating.
In the short term, somebody could get killed.
Audience figures
The new system of measuring audiences – the personal people meters — continues to produce big sports numbers for the TV networks.
The CBC drew 2.306 million for the Leafs-Vancouver Canucks game, a split telecast that included regional games New York Rangers-Montreal Canadiens and Boston Bruins-Ottawa Senators.
A year ago, with the old system of measurement, that lineup would have produced an audience of about 1.4 million, maybe 1.5 million. That’s a jump of about 800,000 viewers. More on this later.
— Consider the difference the A-Rod and the New York Yankees have made for Fox’s league championship series audiences. The network’s ratings (percentage of the potential viewing audience tuned in) for the American League Championship Series Yankees-Los Angels Angels were up 35.4 per cent from last year when Fox carried the NLCS (Phillies-Dodgers). Fox averaged 6.5 for the six-game Yankees-Angels series. The average was 4.8 for Phillies-Dodgers (five games) a year ago. Sunday’s Game 6, by the way, had 9.3 overnight rating.
Filed under Article Posts · · 
Email This Article
Mr. Houston: You’ve nailed this! It is shocking that Mr. Brunt, someone who has spent much of his career scolding others in the sports community for their ethics, is so arrogant and/or ignorant as to not see the problem with his behaviour.
Here here. Brunt’s arrogance yesterday was disgusting. I love how he claims that this torch relay thing is not that big a deal. How it is just marketing. Oh really? Well if that is the case Steve, why don’t you give your spot up to a little kid or athlete who would probably die to run with the torch. To me those are the ONLY people who should be running with it. The reason he won’t give up his spot of course is that running with the torch IS A BIG DEAL to him. He just won’t admit it.
And that makes him a fraud. Too bad. From many other media figures I would expect this. But not from Brunt, or Brian Williams, for that matter.
I love this website.
First, let me just say good to see you writing Truths&Rumours again Mr. Houston. It was a sad day when the Globe and Mail let you go and had you replaced with that hack in Calgary.
And speaking of the G&M, I lost quite a bit of respect for Stephen Brunt, whom I consider to be one of the best sports columnists in Canada. No matter how much he tries to sugarcoat this, taking part in the Olympic torch relay means he’s getting in bed with the corrupt IOC. How can anyone believe anything he’ll say if scandal and corruption rear its ugly head with anything to do with the Olympic movement? I thought Brunt was above this. I guess anyone can sell themselves for the right price. See Doug MacLean.
Thanks for the note, Chris. I pursued the opportunity to leave the Globe, took a buyout and left on good terms.
Seriously? Because Brunt is going to run with the Olympic torch for a few hundred metres in Newfoundland, he is suddenly deemed biased toward the Vancouver Olympics? I’m all for critical thinking and cynicism, but it’s a joke to suggest that something this miniscule will affect anyone’s coverage, let alone Stephen Brunt’s.
I really don’t get what the big deal is with this whole torch relay is and I’m already sick of hearing from all the other media folks how outraged they all are when I guarantee you that jealousy is playing a part in it and the majority of them would do the exact same thing if they were working for CTV or one of the partners and were asked to be a relay participant.
And really, what are we talking about here? Running with a torch for a whole 2 minutes, maybe 3 if they are slow. You think buying Brunt off is as easy as giving him a flame and making him exercise?
I’ll give Bob credit for asking Brunt ‘how much of an experience do you think it will be? Do you think you will find Jesus on the way?’ lol.
Good point. I’ve commented previously regarding CTV, VANOC IOC and sportcasters running the torch in your original post.
‘There’s no Santa Claus?’ What a Grinch. Give your torch run portion to a kid you priviledged expense account holding ‘Monarch.’ You’d get more mileage out of that gesture, short sighted old man, but the wool seems to be covering your eyes. Let’em eat cake, eh Brunt?
Sad, really and pathetic.
Hits from behind in the NHL is truly troglodytiffic [made that word up]. They disallow it in all divisions below NHL. They wear ‘STOP’ stickers on the back’s of their helmets for crying out loud. Suddenly it’s carte blanche in NHL? With no repercussions for such dirty pool, the NHL in their wiseness is leading these players to the lions and all the viewers are complicit in their silent approval if they thinks that’s ok, while players are taken off the ice in stretchers. We are going down the same road as the Romans, people!
I have another issue regarding running full tilt into the Goalies. This should also be stopped and penalties and fines ought to be issued to deter this action. I heard Kypreos has no problem with that, stating the players are going too fast, can’t stop and can’t help it!? What an imbecile and what an idiotic statement to make. Players practice stops and starts, you’re words ring hollow with me, Kypreos.
As a goalie in men’s league hockey, I see the same sh^t going on. I don’t stand for it and take out the players from their feet while stopping the puck simultaneously. It’s a pushing and shoving position and it makes goaltending that much more dangerous to my health. Players attempting to run me get flipped over my shoulders head over heels, because the referees can’t issue penalties when it’s not in their rule book – I take their momentum and use to my advantage. I’ve yet to be issued a penalty for this, btw.
I’d rather that change sooner than later. Do you know how much bigger and heavier the players are nowadays? They outweigh me by 30lbs and are taller by 4″ easily. As Russell Peters’ Dad said, ’somebody’s gonna get a big hurt.’
Dustin – Regardless of the size and scope of what Brunt is going to do, it is called “boosterism,” and it’s a line that should never be crossed in journalism.
Unfortunately, Brunt is far from alone in an industry rich with poor ethics.
Mr. Houston, you nailed this one. I respect Stephen Brunt quite a bit, and continue to, but his participation does tarnish his image. How can it not? He’s injecting himself into the story. I won’t be able to read his criticisms or praise of anything Olympic now without wondering if his viewpoint has been influenced by his relay participation.
And perhaps lost in all of this, and worse than the participation of “objective” journalists, is the fact that these spots could have gone to former athletes and children involved in sports. Imagine how much the opportunity would mean to such people? It’s a shame CTV has managed to bungle this as badly as they have.
Bill, great to have you back exposing these issues. One beef though- the blame lies with the marketing & communications people at CTV. They’ve had 2 years to plan for this- couldn’t they have identified this as a potential issue before leaving the “talent” out to dry? They should be protecting their on air folks… They’ve done a horrible job. They have not created anything of value – and now this terrible PR disaster. They should know that this would create negative PR. Plus, I’ve heard from sources that CTV is already shopping the 2012 games and that the “consortium” is not a great place to work right now. Despite what they say, they are going to lose millions. Have you heard anything on this? Thanks Bill keep up the good work- hold them to account.
Maybe I’m missing the point, but i don’t really care who carries the torch.
Granted, maybe the ethical thing would have been for Brunt, who is probably my favorite sports columnist, to turn the offer down.
But in the big scheme of things, what impact will this really have? I mean this isn’t like Rogers getting Jamie Campbell to play 3rd for the Blue Jays for an inning. It’s a pretty meaningless ceremony. I’m not sure I understand the uproar.
Anyway, I could see how CTV employees might have thought that it wouldn’t be an issue for anyone. But then again, I’m not a journalist, so perhaps they should have known better.
Also – regarding Mike Toth – does that mean he’s off The Fan 590 as well?
Also, I agree with you William, I thought McCown did a good job handling an awkward situation. Brunt is clearly his friend, but the torch thing had to be addressed.
I’m impressed that this is posted on fadoo.
I trust that Brunt wouldn’t lose his objectivity, but I am shocked he would allow this to happen. Of course, when your cheques come from a media conglomerate/sponsor, maybe you lose the autonomy that allows you to be ethical. Anyone with a newspaper gig, even Brunt, is holding onto it with a deathgrip as the industry crumbles.
Imagine the Olympics weren’t a giant corporate waste of time, space, energy, and money? Imagine if any forward-thinking person wasted more than one minute fretting the integrity of Brunt or anyone else connected to the VANCOUVER 2010 OLYMPICS SPONSORED BY COKE AND VISA, BROADCAST ON CBC, SPORTSNET, AND TSN.
Yawn. The whole circus isn’t worth our time or concern.
i’m thrilled to find Mr. Houston doing what he does so very well on this blog. He has been sorely missed since the arrival of that ridiculous jacket.
on Brunt: when you report on a subject matter you have to avoid even the appearance of conflict. Brunt chose not to do this and instead opted for a once in a lifetime opportunity given to him by the organizers of the olympics. that’s a fine choice to make but one which immediately and straightforwardly justifies the criticism of his objectivity. can’t have it both ways. i also find it hard to believe that he doesn’t have warm and rosy feelings about VANOC right now which he didn’t have before the offer was made and accepted.
on Toth: i’m sure he’ll land on his feet reporting on 3rd line centres for junior hockey and getting all the playoff tickets he needs.
I have no problem with Mr. Brunt carrying the torch especially in Newfoundland where I presume it will be lower profile than in Southern Ontario. He has a residence there, presumably pays property taxes and the like.
Mr. Brunt is one of the few print journalists that can converse in the many sports of pro hockey, Premier League/World Cup soccer,pro boxing and has even attended on occasion with very open eyes MMA events. He “gets” the big picture of sports business. I have never in any of my times listening to him on Prime Time Sports, or reading his G & M columns, questioned his integrity although according to this “serious” event I should.
On the other hand I have more concerns about Mr. McCown who at times seems to enjoy controversy(unless reported in Truth and Rumours in the G & M in its’ newspaper past). Bobcat threw Brian Burke under the bus in my humble opinion last week validly questioning like many of us Burke’s assessment of Leaf talent, massive slump in first 6 or 7 games, and the most pressing issue of trading the Leaf first draft choice(and second pick I think next year) this year and next for Phil Kessel. Not nearly two weeks earlier, Burke was in studio with McCown that at the end I thought was an ad for their mutual admiration for each other. Interestingly the Kessel trade had already happened and Bobcat like the rest of Leaf suckers, was likely intoxicated with their pre-season successes.
His on air humiliation of Doug McLean for being part of the Balsillie Southern Ontario expansion group after having previously shilled in the Prime Time studio for Bettman and the NHL was regrettable. What really happened at the time of McLean’s shilling if I put the pieces together is that McLean had been interviewing for the Tampa Bay GM job.
Stephen Brunt is a fine journalist in my opinion and to the best of my knowledge has not compromised himself by accepting becoming an Olympic torchbearer. The irony of this whole thing at least on Prime Time Sports is that the host McCown called Brunt on it and perhaps implied a less than honorable cause(read commercial boosterism).
Love the online blog Mr. Houston
This entire torch thing is much ado about nothing.
Commenting on a comment . . . just wondering – why is owning property in Newfoundland and paying property taxes important vis a vis carrying an Olympic torch ? If taxes paid were a bona fide selection criterion, then perhaps the citizens of B.C., who bailed out the construction overrrun expenses recently, via their public purse, are the most qualified ? There definitely is a Santa Claus in this situation – he is us.
I find it difficult to believe that the amount CTV paid as a sponsor/broadcaster of the games, or whichever sponsor Brunt is implying he got in as a torch-bearer under who bought him this spot, really paid enough to defray the negative publicity this is getting. Maybe the torch relay should be solely reporters, so that there’s no one in the country to say what a dumb idea this was. Except independant bloggers, of course.
Anyway, the question I’d really like to see Brunt answer is not whether or not he thinks there’s an ethical issue here (of course he’d say no), but what exactly he thinks he’s done to deserve this spot. Having little kids and former Olympic heroes carry the torch makes people tear up and is a lovely thing. Having reporters do it reminds people of what a corrupt, money-grubbing machine the Olympics really are.
Sorry (but not surprised) to see Toth ditched by Sportsnet. The only reason I’d occasionally tune in to Sportsnet News instead of TSN’s SportsCentre is the off chance Toth was on. Toth and Jay Onrait are the only sports anchors I’ve seen who consistently try to be funny and can actually make it work. Every time Don Taylor tries to be funny I feel like stabbing him.
I understand the nonsense around journalistic ethics, but is this really all that different than entertainment writers receiving cool media kits with swag or allowing the kids of baseball beat reporters to shag flies during spring training?
Sure, if you really want to employ a zero tolerance rule on this sort of thing, knock yourself out. I still believe it to be fairly harmless.
Nevertheless, it’s great to have this column back in a new form. Happy to read you again, William.
Brunt has often said that anyone who watches a professional sport is basically condoning the performance enhancing drug use that goes on in that sport…………………now that he has agreed to carry the torch I guess that means he is basically condoning the corruption of the IOC
BWRHXC ozrogsugbxln, [url=http://dvwnzrybnros.com/]dvwnzrybnros[/url], [link=http://qzdtsqdtbydl.com/]qzdtsqdtbydl[/link], http://agjmegcwwscq.com/
I didn’t know that the Globe & Mail were even going to cover the Olympics. It will be the first time that a sports event in BC has appeared in their ‘National’ sports section!
haha thats funny! thanks for the laugh
Cheer up. It WILL get better.
Conflict of interest?
Consider the term “media rights holders” – these are media who pay for the right for special access to the games – how on earth does that not play as a bigger conflict of interest than simply running with the torch for a few minutes?