I am under no illusion, sufferer no delusions that media, the news departments, is other than a business and about the bottom line. Awareness of the profit motivation of news departments and the media means I do not share in the popular misconception that media and/or news departments have any interest in behaving in the best interests of the public, fair and balanced reporting or in making sure the public is fully informed on matters of governance or public policy issues.

The media are under no more obligation to behave responsibly or in the best interests of the public over the best interests of self, than any other citizen is.

Indeed, it could be argued that as media organizations are about making profits, in situations where irresponsible, self-centered behavior will benefit the bottom line the organizations are required to ignore the public interest and act selfishly.

Up to a point.

Determining that point is difficult because it lies in the realm of free speech and is a question of not only what is said but what is left unsaid, the questions left unasked.

We are all aware that the Supreme Court has said free speech ends at a point of yelling ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

What about a crowded theatre where, seeing there is a fire starting the media does not yell ‘FIRE’ but leaves the theatre to set up outside to photograph/video/report on the fire, damage and mayhem that ensues because that would make for much more compelling video and story that a small fire caught and put out in a timely manner?

If, by choosing not to put mikes in the faces of Mr. Vander Zalm, Ms James, the NDP and citizens to ask what they will cut in order pay the $1.6 billion cost of repealing the HST, is the media guilty of choosing to stand silent in order to photograph/video/report on the damage and mayhem that the HST issue is effecting?

In choosing not to bring the $1.6 billion dollar cost of repealing the HST to the forefront of the story, has not the media has made the choice to slip out of the theatre without alerting anyone to the fire so that they may profit from photographing/videoing/reporting on the fire, or in the case of the HST the anti-HST campaign.

Just as there is a limit to the right free speech (‘Fire!’) is there a limit to the right of not speaking (not shouting ‘Fire!’)?

At what point do the media become responsible, are the media liable for, the consequences – the loss of $1.6 billion of federal funds – of questions it chooses not to ask, actions it chooses not to take?

What about Carole James, the NDP and Mr. Vander Zalm? At what point do they become responsible and liable for the $1.6 billion cost of a HST repeal?

At what point is media, at what point are politicians, obligated to act in a responsible manner?