September 6, 2009… WKYC’s Tom Beres remains one of the few serious reporters on local television. That said, it’s shameful that his “Between the Lines” Sunday show too often has conflict of interest written all over it.

Not his personal conflict of interest. Those of his “guests.” That, however, makes it his problem.

WKYC should either do this show right or not do it at all. Management apparently wants to take credit for Beres’ good reputation but doesn’t want to do the show as it should be done.

Beres, entitled Senior Political Reporter for WKYC, has a few minutes each Sunday to rush through comments about important issues – another problem with the show. More seriously his guests are typically people who represent political and business interest as consultants.

They shouldn’t be given air time.

This week was a perfect example when Beres had to disclose that both his guests represent gambling interests as he opened a discussion of gambling issues. Beres may believe that the quick and insufficient discloser he made covers his ass but really it points out a serious problem for his show.

One of the subjects they discussed: Gambling.

Both his guests – Mary Anne Sharkey and Dennis Eckart – represent gambling interests involved in current issues. Two gambling issues are heavy in the news – slots, as prescribed by Gov. Ted Strickland, and casino gambling up for a state-wide vote in November.

Here’s a link to his page for this week’s show:

http://www.wkyc.com/news/politics_govt/politics_article.aspx?storyid=120979&catid=130

These gambling issues involve millions of dollars in lobbying and tens or hundreds of millions of dollars that could be spent if realized. Serious problems evolve from gambling and any discussion about the issue should involve people with absolutely no interest in the financial outcome.

The other problem with this show and other Between the Lines is the little time given. That results in Beres rushing through important issues of the day hastily because of the time factor.

I believe he’s saddled with guests he might not choose if he had the authority. I hate to think they are his real personal choices.

However, the decision is his responsibility, but it also falls upon the Channel 3 station management to offer the public honest commentary in a show that suggests it is providing honest public analysis.

It’s anything but unbiased when you have lobbyist/consultants assessing the very issues that they depend upon for their livelihood.

It happens too often on this show.