Hmm. “Public media”? Now, I can understand the client (see last week's BenefitsPro column), but the media?

Then I remembered something that happened shortly after the DOL came out with its now-vacated “Conflict-of-Interest” (aka “fiduciary”) rule. I'm pretty sure the non-disclosure has expired, so it's safe to talk about it now.

It was a typical day at the office when the phone rang. Too often, those rings come from a party desiring to extract money from me or the people I represent. I don't like those calls. They all sound like they know me. I don't have a great memory (ever since that concussion playing football sophomore year), so I rely on my listening skills to determine if a person really does knows me.

This was one of those times. It was a woman claiming to be a producer for John Oliver's Last Week Tonight. She sounded like she knew me. The “scam radar” told me this one was a classic. Unsolicited phone call from “Hollywood producer” wants to tell the world your story. And it will only cost you…

OK, so that's what I was thinking. I told her I was “busy” and that I'd call her back at a time that was convenient for her. That gave me a chance to conduct my usual due diligence (aided no less by my daughter the Hollywood publicist). Turns out the lady was the real thing. I called her back and graciously offered my expertise.

Just before the conversation ended, I asked her, in a “why do I merit this” sort of way, how she happened to pick me as the person to call. She said, “We read your article on the Frontline “Retirement Gamble” show. We didn't want you to do the same thing to us.” She didn't know that the last thing Martin Smith, who produced that episode for PBS, told me was, “Well, I guess I learned something. Next time we do a show on this topic, you'll be the first person I'll call.”

John Oliver's show aired and didn't make the same mistake as the Frontline piece. It was a hit. From that moment, occurring about three months after the White House announcement of the DOL's Fiduciary Rule, we knew “fiduciary” had graduated from the dusty shelves of the ivy-covered tower to the mainstream.

Clearly, the media helped solidify the concept of fiduciary in the mass market. But what more does it need to do?

If you ask me, it's more of an “error of commission” thing rather than a “error of omission.” The media needs to be careful when it reports talking points. This is the “commission” which generates the error. It's too easy for some journalists to take a white paper and report it as the Gospel truth. There are generally two sides to every story. And one side is often more compelling than the other (but not always).

How the media reports the difference between “sales” and “advice” will help the public differentiate between the two business models. Neither is universally “correct” and either can be more appropriate than the other depending on the specific circumstances. By providing useful guidelines and even templates to their audience, the media can deliver an essential service.

A mere eight years after his box-office smash Every Which Way but Loose, where he costarred with an orangutan, Clint Eastwood decided to run for mayor of Carmel, California. Upon hearing this, President Reagan said, “What makes him think a middle-aged actor who's played with a chimp could have a future in politics?”

The press, wisely, didn't take make the same mistake again.

Maybe there is hope the press will get “fiduciary” right.