Paying for the news

The Australian Press Council is currently looking at the ethical questions arising from chequebook journalism. Industry Member of the Council CHRIS McLEOD gives a personal perspective on some of the issues.

There was a time when someone with a story would happily tell it to the media ... possibly out of public interest, possibly for the self-satisfaction of seeing themselves in print or on TV.

Not any more it seems.

These days, when there's a witness to, or a participant in, a major event, it's only a short time before there's talk of how much they'll get for their story.

People want to sell their story. The media are often willing to buy it. The sellers will say the money covers their expenses, hardship etc. The buyers want exclusivity and the promotional value.

There'll be an agent and there'll be bids and negotiations. The chequebook carries the day, sadly, usually at the expense of good journalism.

The driver, of course, is media competition - the very thing that proponents of cross-media ownership regulations want to promote.

There's a clear commercial advantage in having an exclusive interview with someone like miraculous Thredbo landslide survivor Stuart Diver, for example. If you are the only television network or magazine that has him, people will watch your network or read your magazine. That boosts audience and that, in turn, boosts revenue.

It may be legitimate for Stuart Diver or those like him to make a deal - it keeps the media pack at bay. It's good for business to have the story. Readers will be interested to read it, and the subject matter isn't controversial. There's no need for hard questions, no need to verify facts independently.

But there are great dangers in waving the chequebook around. The obvious risk in some cases is that the story-teller may feel obliged to enhance the story.

It also devalues good journalism. Good journalists would surely boast that they got an exclusive story by sheer determination, digging and fact checking. It's not much of a journalistic boast to say the story was won because "we outbid the rest". Journalists become less relevant in chequebook journalism.

And there are risks for the story-tellers who sign exclusivity agreements: they may think they'll get favourable treatment but others can take pot-shots at them in competitive media (the ones who missed out), leaving them unable to defend themselves because of their exclusivity contract.

The Karen Brown case in Sydney didn't do anyone any favours.

Ms Brown was the security guard who shot dead a would-be hold-up man, signed for an interview with a television current affairs program for $100,000. Then was charged with murder; and the payment was frozen.

The sequence of events leads to the question: what was the purpose of doing the interview when there was growing speculation she could be charged? And how was it she was able to do the interview, but was not well enough to be interviewed by police at that time?

Certainly, the payment would have helped pay for her defence against the charges she must have seen coming.

In this case, it is not a question of whether the interview represented good journalism - though most commentators described it as "soft". The question is more whether the media allowed themselves to be manipulated into creating an impression in the community before the charges were laid, possibly even influencing the outcome.

Many would question whether the media should have such a role. The courts subsequently ordered the television network to surrender the $100,000 payment to the Public Trustee. Ms Brown had previously responded to outrage at the payment by saying she would decline it.

A sorry mess.

Next, the Schapelle Corby case. She is facing drug charges in Bali, and a possible death sentence. A lawyer from her defence team said the 60 Minutes television program would foot the bill for expert witnesses, forensic tests and other services.

The network confirmed it was making no payment directly to Ms Corby but was considering assisting with some "services".

The defence lawyer then backtracked and said that there was no deal with 60 Minutes. Another sorry mess that did journalism no favours.

Why a television network would want to get involved before the outcome of a case is not obvious: sure, she may need financial or other assistance and she is innocent until proven guilty. But what if the media involvement influences a false outcome, say, a guilty person being acquitted because of favourable publicity? And where does it leave the media outlet if she turns out to be guilty? Unfortunately, all this will reflect poorly on journalism.

((Editor's note: In March 2004, a case before the Campbelltown (NSW) District Court saw the first instance in Australia of a trial being aborted because a witness - the major complainant in this case of allegations of inflicting of grievous bodily harm on a child by a parent and step-parent - had been offered an exclusive contract by a media organisation before her testimony and during the trial. The judge did not conclude that the offer had affected the witness's testimony but noted that "the serious problem that such an offer raises is that on the occasion when an honest and truthful complainant comes before the Court to whom such an offer is being made, their credit may be so impugned as to prevent a conviction, when a conviction should occur in the interests of justice". In the judge's view "media organisations should refrain ... from making any such offer until trial proceedings have concluded."))

Most recently there was the spectacle of freed Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib and his family being approached for their story as soon as Mr Habib set foot back in Australia.

The Federal Government was quick off the mark to declare its opposition to him 'profiting' from his story. We now know the deal was done with 60 Minutes. It has been speculated that it was worth $200,000.

There's no doubt Mr Habib had a story to tell. But how much of the story he was willing to tell or how much a media outlet was willing to investigate his story remains unclear.

Mr Habib's lawyer, Stephen Hopper, said before the deal was announced that the family was concerned that the chosen media outlet "could do a hatchet job on him and ruin (Mr Habib's) reputation".

So where does that leave the viewer who saw the 60 Minutes interview? Questions must remain about what was agreed to be included and what was agreed to be omitted.

The media are often gentle on subjects. When was the last time we saw a scathing attack on facilities at a resort on the Getaway program? So what would be the problem with going easy on Mr Habib?

There's a significant element here. The Getaway program doesn't purport to be a news or current affairs program. It employs presenters rather than journalists. Consumers see it for what it is: entertainment (or "infotainment" to use the word coined by the industry).

The Habib interview was shown on a program that is staffed by journalists. Viewers would have every right to expect good journalism - no holds barred.

They saw questions and answers. But journalism is more than that. Research, checking of facts, canvassing of views and counter-views are a vital part of journalism.

A one-on-one interview might make good television. But it isn't complete journalism.

And the suspicion remains that even though he may have looked uncomfortable at times, Mr Habib may have set down ground rules for the interview - particularly in view of what his lawyer had said previously.

Sometimes journalists have to accept ground rules to get information.

But they must always remember that the public is owed the complete story.

I hope that there will be follow-ups to the Habib interview. The researchers will go off and check his claims and statements. They'll talk to other people about Mr Habib's activities. They'll find out what he was doing in Pakistan and Afghanistan by investigating there. They'll test his claims. They'll test the claims made about him. The tough question "Are you a terrorist?" was only ever going to get one answer from Mr Habib.

Getting the full story would have been much harder work. A couple of hundred thousand dollars might have bought entertaining television. But did it buy good journalism?

Chris McLeod

((Editor's note: The question of chequebook journalism is currently before the Council which is considering general questions related to the practice and whether disclosure of payment to sources should be noted by publications as well as the particular question of whether the Council needs to issue guidelines to the press on the question of payments to witnesses before or during the conduct of trials.))

See also
Index of website material on courts and contempt

Return to APC News 2005 Index

[ return to top ]

Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.