Paying for an interview?

[thebrain]

I saw the KMSP story with the concealed interview from the woman who claims she saw what happened to Jodi Huisentruit. Turns out it was false.

WCCO ran a story say that the same woman would do an interview with them for "Compensation in exchange for details about what she said she knew." http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_340181455.html WCCO declined.

So did KMSP pay for the interview with a woman who's now going to be charged with what she said? Is it ethical to pay somebody for an interview like that? As a viewer, why would I continue watching a station that promotes an exclusive interview with somebody that knows what happened to Huisentruit only to find out two days later she was lying?

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by thebrain:
Is it ethical to pay somebody for an interview No.

[facts]

Originally posted by Michigan J. Frog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thebrain:
Is it ethical to pay somebody for an interview No.</font>[/QUOTE]I agree, but why isn't it ethical?
I know why we wouldn't want that to become a common practice.. we would go bankrupt as an industry.

But WHY is it unethical? They pay the interviewer.. why not the interviewee?

[overthehill]

You don't pay for interviews, because the supposed TRUTH we seek in the newsgathering, may get lost in the transaction--sold to the highest bidder.

The interviewer is being paid to seek the truth (remember your Code of Ethics?) with every story he or she covers. Is this lure of information, from the interviewee credible, legit, truthful? Maybe, maybe not. Even if it IS credible, in your eyes, will it be perceived credible to your audience or will you look unethical for paying?

Please note that we do pay for some news--video services, some stringer video, the AP, etc. However, when we make a decision to pay for those sources, we are evaluating them as credible or more credible than a one-time interview from a maybe, somewhat, possibly untruthful individual that will harm our sacred credibility in the eyes of our viewers.

[ December 11, 2006, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: overthehill ]

[Dedhed_AND]

Originally posted by overthehill:
You don't pay for interviews, because the supposed TRUTH we seek in the newsgathering, may get lost in the transaction--sold to the highest bidder.Unfortunately, many of today's big "gets" are bought and sold like fish at the Public Market. How much do you think "Today" paid to get the runaway bride? I'd say $25K conservatively. How much for Ashley Smith, the courthouse shooting heroine? I'd say money changes hands on the network level at a much higher rate than at the local level. But I'm sure there are some exchanges on ALL levels. ANd it's not just interviews, but video as well.

Oh, for what it's worth, I don't agree with the practice.

[Another side]

Originally posted by overthehill:
You don't pay for interviews, because the supposed TRUTH we seek ....

The interviewer is being paid to seek the truth (remember your Code of Ethics?) with every story he or she covers. ...Journalists don't seek "the truth"; journalists seek "the facts." The viewer/reader/listner determines his or her own "truth."

[Sultanosurf]

I get paid... to provide truthier facts.

[facts]

Originally posted by overthehill:
You don't pay for interviews, because the supposed TRUTH we seek in the newsgathering, may get lost in the transaction--sold to the highest bidder.
Now, I agree with everything you're saying, but am playing devil's advocate.

Would it not be true that in many interviews, even unpaid, the interviewee has some sort of motivation? Revenge, public exposure, whatever?

And that would be different from the motivation of money how?

[overthehill]

Money changes everything. I see it as a bigger motivation (to tell un-truths) than revenge, publicity, etc.

Have to disagree with "another side": As journalists, decent journalists anyway, we do more than just seek some 'facts'...and then let the audience determine the 'truth.'

Think for a second about the four step journalistic process: gather, analyze, write and re-write. The analyze step is where true journalists do quite a bit of synthesizing about what "facts" to put in and leave out of their story. The journalist weighs those facts based on newsworthiness and storytelling, but also what the journalist believes to be truthful...or more truthful than not.

[tom servo]

Originally posted by facts:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by overthehill:
You don't pay for interviews, because the supposed TRUTH we seek in the newsgathering, may get lost in the transaction--sold to the highest bidder.
Now, I agree with everything you're saying, but am playing devil's advocate.

Would it not be true that in many interviews, even unpaid, the interviewee has some sort of motivation? Revenge, public exposure, whatever?

And that would be different from the motivation of money how?</font>[/QUOTE]Because those motivations are not supplied by US. If they have an unsavory motivation to give an interview, then it's our job to expose that. Be kinda silly if we're the ones giving them the unsavory motivation wouldn't it?

[Spike]

Originally posted by tom servo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by facts:
Now, I agree with everything you're saying, but am playing devil's advocate.

Would it not be true that in many interviews, even unpaid, the interviewee has some sort of motivation? Revenge, public exposure, whatever?

And that would be different from the motivation of money how?Because those motivations are not supplied by US. If they have an unsavory motivation to give an interview, then it's our job to expose that. Be kinda silly if we're the ones giving them the unsavory motivation wouldn't it?</font>[/QUOTE]I agree. If you pay someone for an interview, that person becomes an agent/employee of your station. If someone on your payroll is appearing in your stories as participants, you become guilty of making the news yourself. You don't generally use your regular station employees as interviews for that reason; and even in the rare cases where you do, you disclose their affiliation to you in the story so that the viewer at home knows there's a possible conflict of interest.

Would you disclose in your story that you paid for the interview? Probably not. Why? Because you know the public will see that as something suspicious.

Originally posted by Another side:
Journalists don't seek "the truth"; journalists seek "the facts." The viewer/reader/listner determines his or her own "truth."That's an excellent point. Too many journalists don't understand the distinction between truth and accuracy, and the emphasis on the latter in journalism.

[tom servo]

Originally posted by Spike:That's an excellent point. Too many journalists don't understand the distinction between truth and accuracy, and the emphasis on the latter in journalism.[/QB]I think we need to make a distinction here between philosophical truth (i.e. democrats are right, republicans are nuts) and concrete truth (i.e. Joe Politician lied). It IS our job to discover and disclose concrete truths. It is NOT our job to dictate philosophical truths.

[Another side]

Originally posted by tom servo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Spike:That's an excellent point. Too many journalists don't understand the distinction between truth and accuracy, and the emphasis on the latter in journalism.I think we need to make a distinction here between philosophical truth (i.e. democrats are right, republicans are nuts) and concrete truth (i.e. Joe Politician lied). It IS our job to discover and disclose concrete truths. It is NOT our job to dictate philosophical truths.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]It is not our job to dictate truths AT ALL. Using your example, we know the FACT: Joe Politician said there were weapons of mass destruction.

When it turned out there weren't, was he lying? Misinformed? A victim of his own CIA? That's been the argument ever since.

Stick with the facts,and the facts only. If you MUST analyze of "disclose concrete truths" please, please, PLEASE, label it accordingly -- "Opinion," "Analysis" or "Commentary." Don't disguise it as "news."

When you report, "The meeting will be held Tuesday," you're suggesting you know the truth. The FACT is, the meeting is scheduled for Friday, and that's all you .really know. It may or may not happen. Stick with the facts you know.

[overthehill]

Agreed that we--as reporters and journalists--don't DICTATE TRUTH...but we certainly strive to "seek the truth" in our stories, right?

If we don't strive to seek the truth when we do our fact gathering and fact checking and verification process, aren't we just spreading gossip/rumors with the stories we tell? Random facts? Or at least associated facts, told to us by someone, about a common topic?

Sure we can present a buncha facts in our 1:30 pkg or :30 sec VO, but like cops who collect as much evidence as they can, we collect facts, assemble them in a rational order and try to tell a story that we believe is close to the truth. Our competitors do the same and we hope to be "more truthful" or closer to the truth than them.

With each story, we're on a quest to tell the truth (of a fire, crime, council meeting, political event, etc.). Unless we witness it with our own eyes, we don't know the truth. We rely on multiple sources (like cops) with the hopes that circling the scene will put us closer to pure truth.

Is any story we write or tell totally truthful? Probably not. But if we believe it to be so and strive to seek the truth again tomorrow and the day after, we build crediblity and an audience.

Buying an interview has the likelihood of short circuiting the truth-seeking process.

[ December 13, 2006, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: overthehill ]

[Another side]

Originally posted by overthehill:
Agreed that we--as reporters and journalists--don't DICTATE TRUTH...but we certainly strive to "seek the truth" in our stories, right? No, or at least, we shouldn't. We should strive to report the facts. We don't know the truth, and as soon as we pretend we do, someone will remind us they find a different "truth."

If we don't strive to seek the truth when we do our fact gathering and fact checking and verification process, aren't we just spreading gossip/rumors with the stories we tell? Random facts? Or at least associated facts, told to us by someone, about a common topic?I'd argue precisely the opposite -- that if we do our fact-gathering in a dutiful, conscientious manner, we will help eliminate gossip and rumor. When we say, "The fire was started by a faulty electrical outlet in a back bedroom," we are insisting we know the truth; when we say, "The fire inspector said the fire was started by a faulty electrical outlet in a back room," we are reporting the only fact we know, and we're making no presumption as to the final validity of his statement. He's the expert, that's what he said, that's what we know. The insurance company may want to argue with him; the occupant may disagree. All we know as fact, is what he said; we don't know the truth.

Sure we can present a buncha facts in our 1:30 pkg or :30 sec VO, but like cops who collect as much evidence as they can, we collect facts, assemble them in a rational order and try to tell a story that we believe is close to the truth. Our competitors do the same and we hope to be "more truthful" or closer to the truth than them.I was right with you until, " ...try to tell a story we believe is close to the truth." I disagree. We try -- and most of us went to school to learn how to do it -- to collect the facts and place them in a rational order that we hope presents an accurate picture of what happened. It's not easy work, sometimes. Facts change ... but the truth is still out there, perhaps undiscovered. But it's there, always has been, always will be.

With each story, we're on a quest to tell the truth (of a fire, crime, council meeting, political event, etc.). Unless we witness it with our own eyes, we don't know the truth. We rely on multiple sources (like cops) with the hopes that circling the scene will put us closer to pure truth.With my obvious disagreement with your first sentence nothwithstanding, I think you nailed it from that point on. We aren't there ... we don't know. We have to rely on facts gathered from people who were, or at least hold themselves out as being in a position to know. I agree (and I think it's appropriate) that we "hope" to get closer to the pure truth. We just have to presume we'll never get there, because if we insist we have, we're then offering opinion -- i.e., we think the truth is ...

Is any story we write or tell totally truthful? Probably not. But if we believe it to be so and strive to seek the truth again tomorrow and the day after, we build crediblity and an audience."Truthful" is not the issue; "accurate" is. Substitute the word "accurate" for "truthful" in the above statement, and I'm with you 100 percent.

And by the way ... I agree totally that paying for stories or information is the wrong way to go. The "fact" is, it invites skepticism; the "truth" may be that the skepticism was unnecessary.

[Pro]

This is a bit OT, but you all might enjoy it.

In her book "And So It Goes", Linda Ellerbee tells this story about her days at WCBS-TV:

When she started there, she was the Nightside reporter. On one particular freezing New York winter night, she decided to do a story on how streetwalkers survived in the frigid cold.

She was able to get one to talk to her (shot from behind), and thinking that by doing so, the "lady of the night" was sacrificing an opportunity to make money, Ellerbee slipped her a $20 bill.

Ellerbee tried to put that on her expense account, until the business office sent the report back with a note that said "CBS does NOT pay for interviews!".

Someone in the newsroom saw the note and told her that while they won't pay for interviews, they WILL pay for meals.

So Ellerbee re-submitted her expense account detailing it "Dinner with whore - $20."

She got her money. :D

[facts]

Originally posted by tom servo:
Because those motivations are not supplied by US. If they have an unsavory motivation to give an interview, then it's our job to expose that. Be kinda silly if we're the ones giving them the unsavory motivation wouldn't it?Well said.

[overthehill]

Another side:

I don't think we're in disagreement much at all! Just in terminology.

(Good) reporters do indeed report facts as accurately as they can and attributed properly, blended with the opinions and emotions (SOTs) of experts, witnesses and their own observations (not opinion or commentary) in an effort to seek the truth of the story. That, in my mind, is "seeking the truth" by reporting what we truly believe to be accurate facts.

I learned best about "truth" and journalism and "accuracy" the first time I had the station lawyer go over a script I wrote--word by word, sentence by sentence, asking me what my intention was with each adjective, fact, source, etc. My script held up by the way, and no lawsuit was filed (that time).

[Spike]

Originally posted by overthehill:
(Good) reporters do indeed report facts as accurately as they can and attributed properly, blended with the opinions and emotions (SOTs) of experts, witnesses and their own observations (not opinion or commentary) in an effort to seek the truth of the story.No! You shouldn't be seeking the truth. You should be seeking the facts and presenting them in a way that allows the viewer to arrive at the truth himself. Truth is subjective. Accuracy is not. A fact is either accurate, or it isn't. Truth changes depending on who is deciding what's true.

It goes back to the lying politician story. Suppose the politician is supported by 60% of your community and opposed by the remaining 40%. YOUR truth may be that the politician lied. His supporters may see a different truth, that he had simply been misinformed. If you report your truth that the politician lied, you are wrong as far as the majority of your viewers are concerned. But if you simply report accurate facts, that the politician was heard saying something that others are now saying is untrue, you have given your viewers the facts to let them decide for themselves what is truth.

The distinction between truth and accuracy is important, and the two are not interchangeable. If you blur the line between them as you are doing, it becomes too easy for a journalist to interject his own opinions into a story to an unhealthy degree.

[overthehill]

I haven't tried to imply that accuracy and truth are interchangeable.

So if we're not seeking-the-truth, why is that line in so many journalism codes of ethics?

From SPJ: Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. Journalists should:
— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

From RTNDA Code of Ethics:
TRUTH: Professional electronic journalists should pursue truth aggressively and present the news accurately, in context, and as completely as possible. Professional electronic journalists should: * Continuously seek the truth.

It's a shame you don't agree with professional ethics.

Oh, politicians rarely tell the "truth" so the quest to find the truth is more challenging ;)

[ December 14, 2006, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: overthehill ]

[tom servo]

Originally posted by Another side:
I'd argue precisely the opposite -- that if we do our fact-gathering in a dutiful, conscientious manner, we will help eliminate gossip and rumor. When we say, "The fire was started by a faulty electrical outlet in a back bedroom," we are insisting we know the truth; when we say, "The fire inspector said the fire was started by a faulty electrical outlet in a back room," we are reporting the only fact we know, and we're making no presumption as to the final validity of his statement. He's the expert, that's what he said, that's what we know. The insurance company may want to argue with him; the occupant may disagree. All we know as fact, is what he said; we don't know the truth. You're getting dangerously close to he-said, she-said journalism, which isn't in fact journalism at all. It is absolutely our job to seek out the truth. If Bush claims there are WMDs in a country we're about to invade, it is by god our job to find out if that's the truth or not. If there are, we report it. If there aren't, we report that too.

American journalists these days are so damn afraid of being accused of bias that they bend over backwards to emphasize the idea that they don't know anything, they don't say anything, they're just regurgitating what some other guys said. I'll tell ya right now, that's a load of crap. If someone's lying, and we KNOW he's lying, we should expose that. We shouldn't have to wait for someone else to say he's lying before we say it, if it's the 100% verifiable truth.

Either we're journalists or we're gossiping schoolgirls. What's it gonna be?

[Another side]

Originally posted by overthehill:
I haven't tried to imply that accuracy and truth are interchangeable.

So if we're not seeking-the-truth, why is that line in so many journalism codes of ethics?

From SPJ: Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. Journalists should:
— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

From RTNDA Code of Ethics:
TRUTH: Professional electronic journalists should pursue truth aggressively and present the news accurately, in context, and as completely as possible. Professional electronic journalists should: * Continuously seek the truth.

It's a shame you don't agree with professional ethics.If I may: There is no universal Code of Ethics for journalists. None whatsoever. SPJ offers its code for its members, but as we speak, I don't know anyone who's a member of SPJ. I know a few who are members of RTNDA, but I could probably count them on one hand.

Beyond that, though, the SPJ is well aware of the dispute among professionals with its use of the word "truth," but it's apparently satisfied with it on behalf of its membership. That doesn't make it right, or mean it can't be challenged both inside and outside its membership.

[Another side]

Originally posted by tom servo:
[QUOTE]You're getting dangerously close to he-said, she-said journalism, which isn't in fact journalism at all. It is absolutely our job to seek out the truth. If Bush claims there are WMDs in a country we're about to invade, it is by god our job to find out if that's the truth or not. If there are, we report it. If there aren't, we report that too. Oh, Please. To this day, YOU don't know the truth, but you want to be the one to stand up and point the finger at Bush and say, "He's wrong!" That's advocacy journalism, my friend, and it belongs with commentary and opinion.

All you really know is what others have said, what experts have found,what teams of investigators have said they learned ... and those are facts you can and should present to your audience. Let the audience decide the truth -- "Bush was lying," "Bush was mislead," or "The WMDs were there, just well-hidden or removed before our inspection teams got there." There's no shame in you taking those facts you gathered and -- along with your audience -- forming your own opinion or arriving at your own "truth." Just keep it of your reporting; that's not your role and never has been.

American journalists these days are so damn afraid of being accused of bias that they bend over backwards to emphasize the idea that they don't know anything, they don't say anything, they're just regurgitating what some other guys said. I'll tell ya right now, that's a load of crap. If someone's lying, and we KNOW he's lying, we should expose that. We shouldn't have to wait for someone else to say he's lying before we say it, if it's the 100% verifiable truth.That's interesting, because everything I read says audiences believe all journalists are biased -- from the major networks and cable folks, on down. That suggests to me we aren't bending over far enough. But I'll meet you half way: the next time you have 100 percent verifiable truth that someone is lying, you run with it. You go on the air and report, "Folks, PPPP-TV has learned that George Schoe is a liar ... that when he spoke with us from the meeting room last night, he was lying. Nothing he said was true; it was all a lie."

Have you got the onions to do that, or are you just blowing smoke? Relax ... it'll be awhile before you have to make that decision -- the "100 percent verifiable truth" is a hard calf to rope.

American journalists striving to present factual, informative stories so that audiences can reach their own conclusions is by no means "a load of crap." It's what they do, the service they perform.

American journalists who plagarize, now there's a load of crap.

American journalists who make up stories, intentionally distort or ignore facts, now there's another load of crap.

But American journalists who are so full of themselves, who yearn for the opportunity to stand before a camera only to yell to the audience, "Listen to me ...I know The Truth! is the biggest load of all.

[overthehill]

I'll admit there's no universal code of ethics for journalists. And just because a reporter isn't a MEMBER of SPJ or RTNDA doesn't mean they shouldn't consider subscribing to the ethics and ideals those organizations (or NABJ OR AAJA or whatever) represent.

I would hope EVERY journalist has some kind of inner ethical standard--professionally and personally. If not, that's why our business ranks so poorly in national polls (see below please).

Until journalism is a licensed trade (and I hope it never is) like architecture, attorneys, accountants, physicians, plumbers, etc., there will be no universal code for us to live by...and that's a GOOD thing. Our profession is a creative art with some guidelines for acting properly/ethically to maintain some sense of credibility.

Diversity among journalists (not just race, but culture, belief and thoughts) and even these discussions over truth-seeking in journalism, are healthy for our business.

We ARE truth-seekers and fact reporters...not gossip mongerers. Accuracy is in the journalist's Bible. Seeking the truth (and telling it accurately) of the events and issues we cover is our mission...every day, every newscast, every forecast, every edition.

FYI--Note how journalists rate in this latest Gallup Poll on ethics and honesty:
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=25888

At least we beat insurance sales and car dealers!

[ December 15, 2006, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: overthehill ]

[tom servo]

Originally posted by Another side:Oh, Please. To this day, YOU don't know the truth, but you want to be the one to stand up and point the finger at Bush and say, "He's wrong!" That's advocacy journalism, my friend, and it belongs with commentary and opinion.Really? Where in my post did I indicate which side of this fence I fall on? Who's displaying the bias again?

That's interesting, because everything I read says audiences believe all journalists are biased -- from the major networks and cable folks, on down.Good. I figure if the conservatives don't think I'm liberally biased, and the liberals don't think I'm just as conservatively biased, I'm probably not pushing stories hard enough.

That suggests to me we aren't bending over far enough.It suggests to me that people are going to think you're biased if you say something that makes their side look bad. That does not mean we should refrain from saying it.

But I'll meet you half way: the next time you have 100 percent verifiable truth that someone is lying, you run with it. (snip)

Have you got the onions to do thatYes, I absolutely do. It would have to be incredibly conclusive, 100% proof, but yes, if someone's lying I'll run with it. I don't see why we should disguise the, as you put it, facts, for what they are. If the fact is that someone lied, then we should report that fact.

Good example, Rumsfeld claiming he'd never EVER said Iraq presented a clear danger with regard to WMD's. Well there's tape that conclusively proves he did in fact say that. Multiple times. Would I call him on it if he tried to pull that in an interview? Hell yes I would, and so should you.

"100 percent verifiable truth" is a hard calf to rope.Agreed. But there are times when you do have it, and you should not shy away from it when you do.

[Randy Steinman]

Back in the early 90's, a certain (now-retired) network sportscaster would hand out $50 bills to star baseball players during batting practice, in exchange for pre-game intvus.

Some players eventually refused to do any pre-games...unless they were slipped a $50. A highly-frustrating situation for the ethical majority of reporters who covered this team.

Not that the players cared. This was just before the '94 strike, when their attitudes toward the media/fans/the game was at an all-time low.

The only positive thing was that the (underpaid) team laundry guy would occasionally find a $50 bill in the washing machine. The players would stuff the money in their uniform pocket.. and forget all about it.

[ December 15, 2006, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Randy Steinman ]

[Another side]

Originally posted by tom servo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Another side:Oh, Please. To this day, YOU don't know the truth, but you want to be the one to stand up and point the finger at Bush and say, "He's wrong!" That's advocacy journalism, my friend, and it belongs with commentary and opinion.Really? Where in my post did I indicate which side of this fence I fall on? Who's displaying the bias again?

That's interesting, because everything I read says audiences believe all journalists are biased -- from the major networks and cable folks, on down.Good. I figure if the conservatives don't think I'm liberally biased, and the liberals don't think I'm just as conservatively biased, I'm probably not pushing stories hard enough.

That suggests to me we aren't bending over far enough.It suggests to me that people are going to think you're biased if you say something that makes their side look bad. That does not mean we should refrain from saying it.

But I'll meet you half way: the next time you have 100 percent verifiable truth that someone is lying, you run with it. (snip)

Have you got the onions to do thatYes, I absolutely do. It would have to be incredibly conclusive, 100% proof, but yes, if someone's lying I'll run with it. I don't see why we should disguise the, as you put it, facts, for what they are. If the fact is that someone lied, then we should report that fact.

Good example, Rumsfeld claiming he'd never EVER said Iraq presented a clear danger with regard to WMD's. Well there's tape that conclusively proves he did in fact say that. Multiple times. Would I call him on it if he tried to pull that in an interview? Hell yes I would, and so should you.

"100 percent verifiable truth" is a hard calf to rope.Agreed. But there are times when you do have it, and you should not shy away from it when you do.</font>[/QUOTE]Suit yourself. Good luck.