The issue of cheque book journalism comes up again and again. It’s an important topic for all public relations practitioners because at some stage we will be confronted with this from a client, “Can I sell my story?”.
The answer should be ‘Yes’. Mostly.
What is cheque book journalism?
Cheque book journalism is paying a source directly, for an interview, a photograph, or exclusive access to their story. It’s most associated with tabloid and celebrity coverage, but mainstream outlets have used it too.
The New York Times paid $1,000 for Titanic wireless operator Harold Bride’s account in 1912. CBS paid $100,000 for an interview with Watergate figure H. R. Haldeman in 1975. The Society of Professional Journalists still discourages the practice, arguing it gives a source reason to exaggerate or invent details.
In the US, it’s usually called “checkbook journalism.”
The Pulver Case – it’s different.
On Saturday (6th August) Tim Barlass asked me if the Pulvers should receive money for Madeleine’s story. My short answer (as reported in the Sun Herald story) was, ‘No’. I said I would be surprised if the family was interested in cheque book journalism; rather their focus would be on keeping Madeleine out of the media.
But that’s for her protection and that aside, I am a great supporter of paying people for their experiences. It’s no different from writing a book where an author gets paid for his/her story and effort in the publishing process.
Coincidentally, off the back of the Murdoch hacking story, the New York Times’ Jeremy Peters has written an excellent piece about this. It’s below. Judge for yourself whether payment for stories is a weakness or a strength of tabloid journalism: would the stories have been better off untold, which is what may have happened if no money incentivised the process.
The practical problems for a journalist and publisher are two-fold:
First, when the cheque book comes into play there is a temptation to exaggerate, even invent, what happened to make the story worth telling. Journalists are bound to do what they can to check the truth in a story; corroborating facts is simply more critical.
Second, the person selling the story loses credibility and so does the story. This is a problem to be considered by the public relations practitioner negotiating the arrangement. The public generally don’t like it when people sell their story, or when a publisher has bought it, unless there is a clear motive that has nothing to do with enrichment.
The New York Story
Paying for News? It’s Nothing New
In April 1912, The New York Times paid $1,000 to Harold Bride, the surviving operator of the Titanic’s wireless communications system, for his harrowing tale.
In 1970, Esquire paid $20,000 to William L. Calley Jr., the Army lieutenant at the center of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, for his “confessions.”
In 1976, the British journalist David Frost secured his interviews with Richard M. Nixon after offering the former president a staggering sum of $600,000.
In July 2011, The News of the World closed amid accusations that the paper’s journalists routinely paid the police for information as well as hacked the phones of crime victims.
Also in July 2011, ABC News came under scrutiny for a flurry of payments in pursuit of sought-after news subjects like Casey Anthony, center, the mother tried and acquitted in the death of her young daughter.
A longtime ABC News executive said the network paid a six-figure sum for rights to home movies of Jaycee Lee Dugard, at right, a young woman held captive for 18 years in California. Diane Sawyer, left, secured the first-ever interview with Ms. Dugard, which aired on July 10, 2011.
By JEREMY W. PETERS
Published: August 6, 2011
