" 'Conflict of interest?' What's that?"

She’s not the only one, apparently. But consumer product reviewer Alison Rhodes (“The Safety Mom”), a frequent guest on national, syndicated and local TV shows, not only reviews products whose manufacturers have paid her to mention them, she is unapologetic about it.

Today’s Washington Post reveals that Rhodes, who can be seen on such shows as “Regis and Kelly”, “Today” and “Good Morning America!” as well as local news outlets around the country, raved on the air about a home electronic monitor and a backpack with a built-in alarm known as the iSafe bag without telling either viewers or producers that she had accepted payola from their makers. Rhodes, however, shrugs off the issue. She tells the Post that she doesn’t see any problem, because “I’m not going to take on any engagement with a client unless I believe in their product.”  Amazing. Meanwhile, the news programs the Post interviewed claim that they had no inkling that Rhodes was plugging the product of a client.

This brazen deception of the public is inexcusable, but the shamelessness—or ignorance— of Rhodes and the negligence of those who give her exposure are worse. Fine: many celebrity spokespersons on commercials only make paid endorsements for products they actually like or use. Nevertheless, they are appearing in ads, and viewers know it. They also know that when Wilford Brimley shills for medical products, he isn’t doing it out of the good of his heart. He gets paid. Rhodes appears primarily in news show consumer segments, which are not supposed to be paid ads and are represented to viewers as objective and factual. The presumption is that Rhodes is a trustworthy expert, and that her opinion has not been bought, influenced or  biased in any way. Her contention that the fact that she has been paid to plug the products she reviews doesn’t matter is either dishonest, proof of dementia, or an indication of an insensitivity to basic ethical standards that is…well, come to think of it, pretty common.  This is a conflict of interest. It is, or should be, an obvious conflict of interest. If Rhodes doesn’t say nice things about the products, she stops getting checks. This woman really doesn’t believe that her trusting audience has a right to know that? Or that she should so inform her incompetent and lazy allies, who put naively her on the air without making certain that she’s not breaking the law and deceiving their viewers? For payola is against the law. A product endorser who receives something of value must disclose that fact to the station that broadcasts the endorsement, and the broadcaster must in turn inform its audience. Failure to do so can bring a fine of up to $10,000 and a one-year prison sentence. A news show that doesn’t do its due diligence to make certain it isn’t assisting in a payola scam is criminally negligent.

A few things need to happen to end this ethics fiasco. The feds need to crack down on stations and shows that allow frauds like Alison Rhodes to pose as objective product reviewers while accepting what are essentially bribes. They need to prosecute her, and if the Post story is accurate—always a question, I know—she should be banished forever to doing infomercials for prison attire.

Certainly she should never be allowed to appear on television as a “consumer product expert” again. I’m going to keep an eye out for her now. You should too.