July 26th, 2011
Thank You, ABC, for (finally) doing the right thing
By Hagit Limor, 2010-11 SPJ President
ABC has gotten a lot of exclusive interviews lately, but frankly, I just didn’t know whether to trust the information. You had to wonder about the motivation of the interviewees, knowing ABC had no problem buying news.
The network paid Casey Anthony $200,000 in 2008, then paid the man who found her daughter’s body $15,000 to “license a photo of a snake” — while, by the way, also providing an interview. There were other payoffs too.
Pay equals potential for the subject to embellish or fabricate information in return for that check. Better make it sound good so the money train keeps rolling.
So I didn’t watch Diane Sawyer’s exclusive interview with Jaycee Dugard. It was a ratings blockbuster but I didn’t want to invest time in something I suspected might involve just another payday. Same for Robin Roberts’ exclusive airing today with the DSK maid. Who knows? Maybe these sources are telling the complete truth. Maybe, they’re just in it for the money. As long as ABC pays some, you don’t trust any.
In all fairness, ABC is not alone. All the networks have participated in an increasing game upping the ante. As Chris Cuomo said last month, it’s become “the state of play.” But that state has something to do with why the public doesn’t trust journalists any more. Truly important information belongs to the public without a cash register ringing.
For this reason, I applaud ABC for its announcement today that it would end this practice, ‘though I worry about an exception they seem to have made to grant licensing fees under “extraordinary circumstances.” Call it a licensing fee or pay; it’s the same thing, and the Society’s Code of Ethics clearly explains that it brings suspicion into a process that should be pure. At the least if they do “license”, one would hope they’d disclose it fully to their viewers. “We paid for this access.”
Still, it’s a good first step. Now, I challenge everyone else to follow suit. There’s no place for checkbook journalism in honest journalism.
July 26th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
It should surprise no one that ABC and the others pay for interviews.
I even got OPRAH to pay me for doing mine and I had a witness when I opened the sealed envelope. But that’s entertainment, not news. IF they want you badly enough they will also approve an ancillary plane itinerary and 2 nites at the hotel instead of one. I decalred it as income and that was that. And she wasn’t the onle host/hostes who would negotiate a “package.”
July 26th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
typing errors
declared
only
July 26th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Mr. Leichtman – be very careful with your words and what you imply. You are incorrect when you state that Oprah paid for interviews or paid for yours (if you were indeed ever on the show). I worked for the Oprah Winfrey show for more than a dozen years and we have never paid for our interviews. We didn’t need to…. if people wanted to talk to Oprah they would. If people wanted compensation, their intentions were not in alignment with ours. And that is one of the things that made our standards of integrity so high – whether the show was technically slated “entertainment” or not. It was show standard to pay for the fight and hotel due to taping schedules and travel needs of the guests…that is not considered compensation…it is part of show production costs. ****We would not ask a guests to take time out of their life to be on the show, share their story and then ask them to incur travel related expenses (flight, hotel, meals) – which could be quite high purchasing tickets at the last minute. That is not payment – you did not receive payment.*** Be careful with your words and “facts.” ABC, like other networks, have an advantage to booking payments or not – as their bookers have a lot to negotiate with – tiered opportunities for promotion… meaning – you get minutes on GMA, WNT, Nightline, Primetime, 20/20… which is considerable free on air time/promotion opportunity if you have a book to sell, a message to make, etc….
August 1st, 2011 at 5:28 am
This brings up a good point. While many network shows might not “pay” a guest for an interview, guests clearly are being compensated for their time and expenses. Maybe that’s fair, for the reasons TV Producer stated. But there’s certainly the potential for bidding races for guests by providing the best compensation. At the very least, these arrangements should be disclosed, whether they’re standard for the industry or not. Did the Oprah show have a disclaimer on each show that it had paid for guests’ travel and hotel expenses?
The networks’ practices in getting access to newsmakers have been egregious. In a very real sense, they were (and are) paying for interviews by laundering those payments as “licensing fees.” Almost always, they fail to clearly disclose the business transactions they’ve made with sources. If this is the “state of play,” as Cuomo said, why do the networks keep it a secret from their viewers?
August 16th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Excellent post. Paying for news compromises independence and credibility. But what about when a news organization “sponsors” an event and then gets exclusive rights to certain aspects.
Two examples: At one of the papers I worked at before, we were trying to get information on the winners of last year’s county fair, and we were told that could not be released because another paper was the official media sponsor of the fair and had exclusive rights to that information. (The boss was not one for rocking the boat, so we couldn’t challenge it.) The other happened earlier this year, when organizers of one of the major festivals in the state was announcing who was headlining the festival’s main event. One of them was David Archuleta (of “American Idol” fame), who showed up, and I was tried to get some comment on Archuleta’s label dropping him. At that point, they said he needed to make some radio spots for the program, so I waited. And that is when I noticed a reporter from one of the other papers interviewing him. When I went in, the PR guy stops me and says that paper has the exclusive right to interview him because they were a co-sponsor and provide free advertising. “So, is this pay to play?” I asked, and the guy quickly started dissembling. I managed to get my questions in, but only as Archuleta was being escorted to his ride to the airport. I did get an apology from the festival’s executive director.
So, are sponsorships, with the promise of some exclusive access, another version of paying for news?