5. Journalistic practices and the quality of journalism
Chequebook Journalism
Chequebook journalism has continued to thrive in the media. The arguments for and against its use also continue.
People are still being paid for their stories, agents continue to reap their share of exclusive deals and media outlets which miss out on interviews with newsmakers continue to cry “foul”. Legislators have acted to prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes by way of such activity as paid interviews. But still people with a story to tell are profiting.
Online site Crikey.com.au has detailed more than 50 instances of paid interviews in the media over the past decade. Most of those interviews have appeared on current affairs television programs. But it is also noted that the glossy magazine section of the print media engages in the practice, either jointly with associated TV networks or on their own. Paying people to tell their story raises ethical questions and leads to debate about just what constitutes journalism and what is simply an entertainment deal.
The “Iguanagate” furore in NSW brought the payment for interview question firmly into focus yet again this year—a former staffer of federal Labor MP Belinda Neal was paid for an interview on the Nine Network in which she asserted her view that the MP intimidated and pressured her into changing her version of events at the Central Coast nightspot, Iguanas restaurant. Why would someone be paid to tell what they see as the truth about such an event?
Nine and the former staffer were adamant that all she did was repeat on air what she had already told police. So, no problem. Payment was irrelevant. But was it?
Generally those who wish to blow the whistle do so for the best of motives. But why should they be paid for it, after they have already given their version through official channels?
There are a couple of arguments as to why payment would be made in such circumstances. One is that the Nine network wanted the former staffer's story first, exclusively. It could have been a ratings winner. Secondly, the former staffer would probably be hounded by a media pack when what she had told police was eventually revealed. Making an exclusive deal with one network would isolate her from such a bunfight—even though her evidence probably would have become public sometime.
For all that, we don't know what the agreement for the interview involved. As with almost all agreements for exclusive interviews the public isn't told whether there were conditions on what questions could be asked or what the subject would say.
The former staffer's version of events was an important part of continuing news story. Signing up for money and exclusivity however restricted the rest of the news media (and the public) from timely access to some of the developments and answers that they may have wanted.
Most instances of paid interviews—the term ‘chequebook journalism’ isn't really appropriate because the practice often has little to do with journalism at all—come in the highly competitive world of 6.30pm TV programs. That's peak viewing time.
The cut–throat magazine industry is also active with the chequebook. Why else would Greg Norman and Christ Evert go to such lengths as having a newspaper crew removed from an island in the Bahamas where they were to wed? Some might say the newspapers crews were after something for nothing. Others would say they had a legitimate interest in covering a news event—the wedding of two sporting icons.
Clearly a deal had been done that guaranteed exclusive coverage and that didn't allow a role for the traditional news media.
TV current affairs programs and glossy gossipy magazines include themselves in the press or news media when more properly they are engaged in the entertainment business.
And what of newspapers? As the traditional printed press embraces the internet, are they, too, not tending more towards entertainment than news, with their webcasts, downloads and “personalities”?
A number of factors are involved in a decision to pay people for their stories. One of course is competition—if there's a good story media outlets will want to secure it for themselves. Also, there will be cases where interview subjects are in dire straights and some form of payment would be of significant benefit to them.
That doesn't explain why disgraced footballer Wayne Carey and his girlfriend would accept payment to be interviewed on television while a number of police investigations and charges were pending. Did the words of NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery QC, fall on deaf ears in 2004 when he warned that chequebook journalism was interfering with justice?
Nobody seemed to have a problem about the Beaconsfield miners benefiting from telling their story about being trapped underground for 5 days after a mine collapse that killed their workmate.
And the public relations consultants seem to make a bit of sense when they argue that someone like trapped Thredbo landslide victim Stuart Diver makes an exclusive deal so that the collective media will give him some degree of peace after his ordeal.
But being in the news it seems has become a ticket to fame for many who have fringe connections to criminal activity, though they themselves have not been found guilty of anything.
In the first half of 2008 we saw gangland lawyer Zara Garde–Wilson paid for an interview and gangland figure wife Roberta Williams paid for a number of media “appearances”. Melbourne's Herald Sun reported that TV current affairs programs in one week shelled out around $100,000 for interviews with Ms Zarah Garde–Wilson and Ms Williams. Also in that week, the newspaper said, the former Neal staffer was paid around $30,000 for her story.
Why shouldn't they profit from their associations? They wouldn't have benefited has they been the girlfriend of a medical student or the wife of an accountant who hadn't made a dubious name for themselves.
Celebrity agent Max Markson told The Herald Sun there was nothing wrong with current affairs shows paying for interviews in a bid to win ratings. He was quoted thus: “The public want to hear people's stories. What makes a good story is ordinary people doing extraordinary things, or extraordinary people doing ordinary things.”
That probably explains the celebrity status afforded to Corey Worthington, now famous as a party organiser, but who came to prominence when police had to step into his suburban street after a party got out of hand. He became a hero from nowhere.
The competition and entertainment factors mean chequebook journalism will be a permanent feature of the media landscape.
This of course can impact adversely on the public's perception of journalists and journalism. Journalists often conduct some of the paid interviews. Why?
First, they are at the beck and call of their employer. Secondly, they may see conducting the interview as a significant career move. And thirdly they may not see it harmful to the overall profession of journalism.
But what matters most is how the public perceives payment for interviews.
These questions arise:
- If the subject was paid for the interview, what conditions were imposed by the subject and by the payer?
- Do subjects feel obliged to embellish their stories to justify receiving the payment?
- If there is any legitimate news value, were other news outlets denied access to the subject under the terms of the payment, thus creating an impediment to journalists being able to perform their function of reporting the news and denying members of the public access to newsworthy material?
And of course there is the flow–on effect:
- If a future news subject knows that they could be paid for their story will they approach outlets for payments/exclusivity etc? Even dictate by whom they want to be interviewed?
Public perception obviously can have a detrimental effect on the credibility of journalism. Eyebrows were raised when a Logie award (for most outstanding public affairs report) was presented to the Nine Network for an interview with Terri Irwin against the background of Nine making a donation to her late husband Steve's foundation to secure exclusivity.
Ironically, it is the very competition that's advocated by media ownership critics that drives chequebook journalism and ultimately restricts the ability of those without an exclusive agreement to be able to report the full story. While there is little evidence that newspapers engage in direct payments to secure interviews, they do engage in forms of ‘chequebook journalism’.
It can be argued that the effect of a journalist buying lunch and drinks for an interview subject can have the same affect as a direct payment, albeit on a lower scale of cost. And a reader who provides a photograph of a news event often will be paid. The amounts are not great and in fact it can be said that payment is warranted for use of the reader's copyright in the photograph.
Similarly a newspaper may pay a photographic agency for the use of a photograph of a celebrity, justified as a copyright licence payment. A newspaper in Australia might not have access to pictorial coverage of an overseas event and buying a photo could be the only means available to obtain coverage.
But there has been a more disturbing trend in the photo trade. Many national and international sporting organisations see the sale of coverage to the traditional news press in the same way they see the sale of rights to television broadcasters and the electronic media as a potential cash cow.
The world's press have joined to beat off demands for payment for news coverage. But the emergence of the Web has created opportunities for sporting organisations to raise further revenue by treating web coverage as they would TV coverage.
It is in the web environment where the traditional news media—particularly newspapers—are anxious to have a presence that the lines of distinction between news coverage and entertainment are increasingly blurred.
The challenge now is just how will the traditional print media evolve in the web–based environment where it will compete directly with parts of the electronic media that have made payment for interviews an integral part of their business.
Undoubtedly, the integrity of journalism will come under more challenges. Journalists and publishers alike will have to ensure that legitimate news coverage survives, free of chequebook controls, so that the public continues to have timely access to legitimate news coverage.
In sections of the media where payment for stories occurs, there needs to be a genuine approach to disclosure. The first steps: declare what payments have been made and what conditions have been laid down. Secondly, make sure the paid interview is described as entertainment, not journalism. Journalism involves journalists using their initiative, knowledge and contacts to gather the news—not simply turning up to an interview that has been arranged for them by someone with a chequebook.
Disclosure of payment may raise doubts in the minds of members of the public but at least they will be able to form their own views about the authenticity of the interview.
If the payment is kept secret then members of the public would feel they could have been misled if a payment is later revealed.
The public, after all, is entitled to the truth. And to honest journalism.