Policies forbidding payment for news interviews are being
increasingly blurred by U.S. television networks vying for access
to accidental celebrities and photos.
Three of the past month's accidental celebrities - Jasper
Schuringa, the Dutch tourist who helped thwart an attack on a
Detroit-bound plane; David Goldman, who took a custody fight for
his son to Brazil; and the White House party-crashing Salahis -
have either sought or received goodies from TV networks eager to
hear their stories.
Schuringa gave interviews to outlets that had agreed to purchase
blurry cell phone images he'd taken of a man who authorities say
tried to use explosives to take down the plane. Goldman and his son
accepted NBC's offer of a ride home from Brazil on a charter
airplane.
Representatives for Michaele and Tareq Salahi, who embarrassed
the Obama administration by sneaking into a state dinner, were
reportedly seeking six-figure bids from networks to tell their
story.
"I don't know if people would have thought of that in the past,"
said Andy Schotz, head of the ethics committee for the Society of
Professional Journalists. "But now often the first thing people
think of is to get a publicist, a lawyer and an agent and figure
out how to make money" from instant notoriety, he said.
The society condemned NBC for "checkbook journalism" with the
Goldman trip. NBC said it had already chartered a plane to bring
its personnel back from Brazil, and Goldman's lawyer said the
invitation was accepted so father and son could avoid being
accosted by multiple camera crews on the way home.
But NBC took multiple pictures and interviewed Goldman on the
plane before his exclusive interview for the morning news show
"Today"with Meredith Vieira. And the network seems immune to the
industry's financial troubles: A chartered jet from Brazil to New
York would cost about $90,000, according to Blue Star Jets, a New
York-based charter company. Going commercial, a coach seat runs
under $1,400.
Policies against paying for interviews are in place to avoid
distorting the news. The concern is that news subjects will change
their stories to make them more valuable or please those who paid
them.
Evasion efforts seem centered primarily on ultra-competitive
morning news shows and prime-time magazines. These outlets now
fight for stories that might have been considered tabloid fodder
years ago, often against Web sites or other outlets that won't
hesitate to pay for an interview or information.
News organizations now frequently pay interview subjects for the
use of personal photos or videos. Both CNN and ABC paid for a
Schuringa photo, reportedly thousands of dollars, and insisted they
were not paying for an interview. Yet the Web site Gawker.com said
Shai Ben-Ami, a Schuringa friend who was helping arrange media
appearances, made it clear the Dutch hero wouldn't speak to an
outlet that didn't buy rights to a photo. Ben-Ami would not comment
to The Associated Press.
It's an increasingly easy dodge in these days of cell phone
cameras, when there are usually visual images available to
accompany an interview.
Morning shows will often bring an interview subject to New York
and cover expenses. (It's not payment for an interview, but it can
be a nice vacation.)
Networks can skirt ethics policies by putting their
entertainment divisions in charge of an interview, said Nicolla
Hewitt, a longtime network news booker. These would seem most
likely in cases involving major celebrities.
"Do I think it's right? No," Hewitt said. "But is it the new
reality? Yes."
Paul Friedman, a veteran news executive and CBS News senior vice
president, said there's a generational change with more people in
the industry who argue that the old standards are too rigid.
The Schuringa case led Foster Kamer, a Gawker.com writer, to
mock the network news divisions. Gawker has acknowledged that it
paid for a story last fall where a collaborator to Richard Heene
provided evidence that the "balloon boy" episode was a hoax.
"Mainstream outlets who hold themselves in higher regards than
those (like ours) who openly admit ponying up for a story are doing
the same thing themselves, the sole difference being: We don't feel
the need to lie about it," Kamer wrote. "Why do they?"
Paul Levinson, head of the communications department at Fordham
University, said he's been paid for interviews by the British
Broadcasting Corp. ("I'm not allergic to money," he said.) He said
he can't recall a case where the story was distorted because money
was exchanged and argues that the policy doesn't make sense.
"It has always been the case that our free press operates in a
capitalist economy - meaning money is involved, whether we like it
or not," he said.
Networks have a cadre of paid consultants, like former generals
or national security experts who share insights when a complicated
story breaks that involves their topic. There was a time they'd do
it for free for the attention it offered, Friedman said.
Even with policies in place that prohibit payment of interview
subjects, it's interesting how many news subjects think they can
cash in. And how quickly: Schuringa had wrestled with the Detroit
terror subject and dragged him to the front of the plane yet still
had the presence of mind to snap photos when authorities came.
It's hard to know how frequently evasion practices are taking
place, said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter
Institute think tank. They don't usually become known unless the
interview subjects talk about it or disgruntled network officials
leak the news, as happened with the Salahis.
Reporters at local TV stations or newspapers that don't pay for
interviews are more frequently meeting news subjects who won't talk
unless they're paid, McBride said.
"If we all drew a line again, maybe we could stop this,"
Friedman said. "But that's probably hopelessly naive. It's out of
the bottle."
increasingly blurred by U.S. television networks vying for access
to accidental celebrities and photos.
Three of the past month's accidental celebrities - Jasper
Schuringa, the Dutch tourist who helped thwart an attack on a
Detroit-bound plane; David Goldman, who took a custody fight for
his son to Brazil; and the White House party-crashing Salahis -
have either sought or received goodies from TV networks eager to
hear their stories.
Schuringa gave interviews to outlets that had agreed to purchase
blurry cell phone images he'd taken of a man who authorities say
tried to use explosives to take down the plane. Goldman and his son
accepted NBC's offer of a ride home from Brazil on a charter
airplane.
Representatives for Michaele and Tareq Salahi, who embarrassed
the Obama administration by sneaking into a state dinner, were
reportedly seeking six-figure bids from networks to tell their
story.
"I don't know if people would have thought of that in the past,"
said Andy Schotz, head of the ethics committee for the Society of
Professional Journalists. "But now often the first thing people
think of is to get a publicist, a lawyer and an agent and figure
out how to make money" from instant notoriety, he said.
The society condemned NBC for "checkbook journalism" with the
Goldman trip. NBC said it had already chartered a plane to bring
its personnel back from Brazil, and Goldman's lawyer said the
invitation was accepted so father and son could avoid being
accosted by multiple camera crews on the way home.
But NBC took multiple pictures and interviewed Goldman on the
plane before his exclusive interview for the morning news show
"Today"with Meredith Vieira. And the network seems immune to the
industry's financial troubles: A chartered jet from Brazil to New
York would cost about $90,000, according to Blue Star Jets, a New
York-based charter company. Going commercial, a coach seat runs
under $1,400.
Policies against paying for interviews are in place to avoid
distorting the news. The concern is that news subjects will change
their stories to make them more valuable or please those who paid
them.
Evasion efforts seem centered primarily on ultra-competitive
morning news shows and prime-time magazines. These outlets now
fight for stories that might have been considered tabloid fodder
years ago, often against Web sites or other outlets that won't
hesitate to pay for an interview or information.
News organizations now frequently pay interview subjects for the
use of personal photos or videos. Both CNN and ABC paid for a
Schuringa photo, reportedly thousands of dollars, and insisted they
were not paying for an interview. Yet the Web site Gawker.com said
Shai Ben-Ami, a Schuringa friend who was helping arrange media
appearances, made it clear the Dutch hero wouldn't speak to an
outlet that didn't buy rights to a photo. Ben-Ami would not comment
to The Associated Press.
It's an increasingly easy dodge in these days of cell phone
cameras, when there are usually visual images available to
accompany an interview.
Morning shows will often bring an interview subject to New York
and cover expenses. (It's not payment for an interview, but it can
be a nice vacation.)
Networks can skirt ethics policies by putting their
entertainment divisions in charge of an interview, said Nicolla
Hewitt, a longtime network news booker. These would seem most
likely in cases involving major celebrities.
"Do I think it's right? No," Hewitt said. "But is it the new
reality? Yes."
Paul Friedman, a veteran news executive and CBS News senior vice
president, said there's a generational change with more people in
the industry who argue that the old standards are too rigid.
The Schuringa case led Foster Kamer, a Gawker.com writer, to
mock the network news divisions. Gawker has acknowledged that it
paid for a story last fall where a collaborator to Richard Heene
provided evidence that the "balloon boy" episode was a hoax.
"Mainstream outlets who hold themselves in higher regards than
those (like ours) who openly admit ponying up for a story are doing
the same thing themselves, the sole difference being: We don't feel
the need to lie about it," Kamer wrote. "Why do they?"
Paul Levinson, head of the communications department at Fordham
University, said he's been paid for interviews by the British
Broadcasting Corp. ("I'm not allergic to money," he said.) He said
he can't recall a case where the story was distorted because money
was exchanged and argues that the policy doesn't make sense.
"It has always been the case that our free press operates in a
capitalist economy - meaning money is involved, whether we like it
or not," he said.
Networks have a cadre of paid consultants, like former generals
or national security experts who share insights when a complicated
story breaks that involves their topic. There was a time they'd do
it for free for the attention it offered, Friedman said.
Even with policies in place that prohibit payment of interview
subjects, it's interesting how many news subjects think they can
cash in. And how quickly: Schuringa had wrestled with the Detroit
terror subject and dragged him to the front of the plane yet still
had the presence of mind to snap photos when authorities came.
It's hard to know how frequently evasion practices are taking
place, said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter
Institute think tank. They don't usually become known unless the
interview subjects talk about it or disgruntled network officials
leak the news, as happened with the Salahis.
Reporters at local TV stations or newspapers that don't pay for
interviews are more frequently meeting news subjects who won't talk
unless they're paid, McBride said.
"If we all drew a line again, maybe we could stop this,"
Friedman said. "But that's probably hopelessly naive. It's out of
the bottle."