In a democracy, elected officials are chosen to serve the people, legislate, and oversee government operations—not to moonlight as media moguls. Yet, in an unprecedented turn of events, one County Commissioner has seemingly decided that governing isn’t enough. Instead, he has launched not one, not two, but three media outlets—all after taking office, and all while being paid by taxpayers. This raises serious ethical, business, and political questions: Is it appropriate for an elected official to report journalism while in office? What are the conflicts of interest at play? And most importantly, is the public being served, or misled?
When voters elect a County Commissioner, they expect a focus on policies, community development, and governance. They do not expect—or request—the creation of new media outlets operated by the very official they put in office. The problem becomes more concerning when these ventures are launched during the official’s term and potentially on taxpayer time.
The nature of journalism is to hold the government accountable. But what happens when the government is the journalist? It becomes an echo chamber, where the person elected to serve the people is instead controlling the narrative. Objectivity, a core principle of journalism, is fundamentally compromised when the journalist is also the politician. This raises questions about whether the news being reported is unbiased or simply a means to control public perception.
There are strict ethical lines that should not be crossed when an elected official also operates a media outlet. The primary issue here is conflict of interest—the inability to separate governance from personal ventures. If a public official is producing media that discusses county affairs, they hold an unfair advantage over private journalists. Their position grants them privileged access to information, potentially creating a media monopoly that excludes independent voices.
Furthermore, the ethics of using taxpayer-funded time to build a personal business empire cannot be ignored. If this official is dedicating significant time to running media outlets, they are neglecting their primary duty: governing. Every hour spent writing articles, recording news segments, or managing media operations is an hour taken away from fulfilling their responsibilities to the public.
And what about funding? Are public resources—directly or indirectly—being used to support these media ventures? If so, this could be a misappropriation of funds, an issue that warrants investigation.
Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of this situation is whether the public wanted it in the first place. Voters elected a Commissioner, not a journalist. Now, they are being served news they didn’t request from a source they didn’t consent to. A Commissioner’s job is to manage county affairs, not dictate the media landscape.
It’s also worth asking whether this official’s shift to media was forewarned. If voters had been told before the election that their candidate intended to create multiple news outlets instead of focusing on governance, would they have still voted for him? The answer is likely no. Yet, now that this reality has unfolded, the community is left wondering: What happens when a politician decides that being in the news is more important than doing the job they were elected to do?
This situation is more than just a bizarre career shift—it’s a strategic move with serious implications. Controlling media gives a politician an unprecedented ability to shape public opinion, avoid criticism, and suppress opposing viewpoints. It is a dangerous precedent, one that echoes authoritarian tendencies seen in countries where the government controls information.
By owning and operating multiple media outlets, this Commissioner has essentially removed the checks and balances that independent journalism provides. Instead of being held accountable by the press, he has become the press. It’s a concerning power move—one that should alarm both voters and professional journalists.
Public service is a full-time job. It requires dedication, integrity, and a commitment to the people. When an elected official shifts focus to self-promotion and media influence, they are failing their constituents. This Commissioner was elected to lead, not to broadcast the news.
The community must now ask itself: Is this acceptable? If not, what steps will be taken to hold this official accountable? Whether through public pressure, legal inquiry, or future elections, voters must decide if they want their leaders to be politicians—or performers.
Because right now, one man seems determined to be both.
