By Stacey Woelfel, RTDNA Chairman  

As you climbed out from under your piles of wrapping paper (or Midwestern snow, whichever was deeper) this Christmas weekend, you may have had time to follow the exploits of one Jasper Schuringa.  Mr. Schuringa (pictured right) was, of course, one of the passengers on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 who helped subdue the man who tried to detonate an explosive on the plane on Christmas Day.

The Dutchman was quick to contact the media with his 'hero' status, willing to tell his story in exchange for what now appears to be certain 'considerations.' In addition to his story of overpowering Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab on the plane landing in Detroit after a transatlantic crossing originating in Amsterdam, Schuringa was also peddling a couple of cell phone pictures.  It was one of those pictures, one in which you can make out the suspect only by the contrast of his white shirt to the darker ones around him, that CNN says it paid a 'licensing fee' to use.  CNN told TVNewser it did not pay for the interview that accompanied the photo.  You can see that entire interview here.

"Don't Miss" Stories

A Memo to Tiger Woods
NPR's Carl Kassel Retires His Alarm Clock
Podcast: What Makes TMZ Relevant to Local News
Financial Reporting Story Ideas

It’s a good thing CNN 'didn’t pay' for the interview.  It’s not very good.  Schuringa is a lousy subject who talks about his experience like he’s describing the latest “Die Hard” movie to a friend in an Amsterdam club.  To me, his interview lacked emotion and any semblance of a personal connection to the event.  And why shouldn’t it?  It’s just business now.  CNN didn’t disclose what it paid Schuringa, though TVNewser reports a price tag of $10,000 was running around other media outlets interested in the same 'picture.'  Gawker.com reports the New York Post and ABC News coughed up another $8,000 for more picture 'rights.'  But overpaying for a crummy interview and a blurry photo isn’t what’s at issue here, not from where I’m sitting.



Checkbook journalism has been around for as long, I suspect, as there have been checkbooks and journalists.  It was a core business strategy for the likes of Hearst and Pulitzer.  But it’s crazy to be relying upon it now.

You see, that’s the angle I’m taking here today.  It’s easy for anyone to write a column or blog and rage against the sin of checkbook journalism. Anyone can talk about the arms race that begins when opposing journalistic forces look to outbid one another for the big story.  It’s simple to point out the story that you have to pay for comes with a lot of questions about how much truth you just bought versus how much fiction.  So I won’t repeat those criticisms you’ve all heard so many times before.  Instead, I’ll raise my objections today on just how shortsighted it is to try to beat the competition by spending what could easily be a five-figure sum to get one interview.  In the new economy of the media today, what sort of decision is that?

This is the era of UGC—user-generated content.  Like no other time in history, news sources—our consumers—will give you their pictures/videos/interviews for free. If I’m not mistaken, CNN actually had me and maybe a million of my friends pay Apple $1.99 (I assume CNN got a cut) for the CNN iPhone app. That app allows me to upload pictures and other content directly from my phone.  It’s an extension of the network’s iReport brand.  So CNN not only has people willing to give it all kinds of content for free, it actually has people paying to be able to send in their news through photos and other means.  If that’s the case, is paying an eyewitness really a good idea?

Take a look at this story, also from CNN.

In it, other passengers on Flight 253 tell their stories about those harrowing few minutes at the end of the flight.  I’m pretty sure no one paid them.  The one passenger quoted, Syed Jafry, was actually sitting much closer to the would-be bomber than Schuringa.  But he didn’t work to sell his story as much as his fellow passenger.  So he didn’t get any money to tell his story (which in my mind offered a lot more insight than Schuringa’s “I’m a hero” story).

What I’m saying is that if someone has an honest story to tell, they’ll do it for free.  We’ve always known that.  In fact, it’s what’s made our system of journalism work for the last 100 years or so.  Now, in a time when we’re wondering how we’re going to keep the news industry afloat financially, it’s unconscionable to think about a bidding war for sources on important—or unimportant—news stories. 

Any company that’s laid off journalists but is still willing to pay sources for interviews is on the wrong side of the ledger here.  Let’s leave CNN out of it for a minute.  If a hypothetical news organization SNC (Super News Channel) pays $10,000 for photos or interview or whatever just three or four times a year, that’s the salary of another journalist—at least an entry-level one.  How many stories could that young journalist have turned in the course of his first year on the job?  I’d say at least 200.  So paying for a story—a recognized journalistic wrong—yields four stories.  Cultivating a budding reporter—I think most people would see that as a good thing—yields 50 times more.  Even the bean counters at the top of our companies we love to complain about see the first scenario makes no sense.

So make your argument on the old turf of journalism ethics.  Or make it on new battlefield of economic survival.  Either way, checkbook journalism doesn’t make any long term sense.  Sure, you win this story.  But where do you end up in the long run.
So when the next Jasper Schuringa comes knocking, listen of course.  But don’t pay.  You’re buying a ticket on a one-way flight to ruin for our profession.

 

 

POST A COMMENT

Agree and Disagree

While I join you in being repelled and depressed by the state of checkbook journalism, I have to disagree with one point. You stated that if people have a good/true story they will tell it for free. I respectfully disagree. Why tell a story for free when you can get paid to do the same thing? Sad but true.

Money talks...

Great Blog, Stacey. It's a bit like paying witnesses in a trial , depending on whether the accused is found guilty or not (something that's illegal in the UK!). All news organisations should state upfront if they have paid for a contributor to a story and even how much. Then the listener/viewer/reader could make up their own minds about its likely veracity. And you're right, of course, about the knock-on economic effect; news budgets are not very flexible, especially at the moment, so it's pretty much a zero-sum game.

Disagree

Why should interviews be free when the anchors of these big box cable news organizations are pulling 6 and 7 figure salaries to cut and paste the news from the AP and Rueters to shove in teleprompters for breast augmented, lip glossed and bleach blonde Infobabes to read aloud? Its not like they even wrote the copy that they are discussing.....

Where is the real news coming from anyway??

Yawn, where have you been?

Tabloid journalist have been paying for pictures and stories for years. Most of the major news organizations have already sold their souls to big corps and politicians on both sides of the aisle. Ethical journalism is a joke, it died years ago.

Journalists

If real journalists would report the news (ie. the facts) rather than their opinion then perhaps their profession would be viewed with more respect. As it is, the past couple of decades have really lowered the bar for journalism. Until that changes the news of a paid source who happened to be at the scene is money better spent than for a pompous journalist with an agenda to push and preach.

The Real Problem

There is an issue just as important if not more important than paying for a story. Paying for a story is a smaller part of the whole. The veracity of a story has much more to do with the individual journalist than the person being interviewed for the story or the subject matter of the story. We need to know more about the person writing the story so that we can decide how much we trust the story. We know that bias exists in all human beings and therefor exists in journalists. On top of that the internet allows anybody anywhere to publish "news" whether they are a responsible journalist or not. A short bio of each journalist including their voting record, political contributions, charitable donations, personal causes and group affiliations accompanying each article would help determine who we are getting our news from and allow us to weigh their biases. Obviously full disclosure would include if a person or organization paid for a story or even paid for a picture. This would also allow us to pick and choose whom we trust to give us the unfettered truth. It would aid us to view different articles through the appropriate lens based on the specific reporter and specific new organization. We already discount stories done by certain news outlets on both the left and right ass being biased. The better we understand the source the better we can understand the veracity of the story.

Even More Basic Flaw...

You talk as if there were still such a thing as "journalism" in the traditional sense. There isn't.

As a professor of mass communication, I have observed over my years the transition from journalism/news to information/entertainment. And, unfortunately, most of that is pursuasive communication, translated correctly by impartial observers who evaluate it using the definition of jouranlism as bias.

Almost all "news" outlets today are trying to persuade you to a social/political point of view (NBC and it's baby--or should that be infantile--outlet MsNBC the worst of all) or to provide better, more appealing entertainment to capture Nielsen numbers.

So, we've been paying entertainers for years. Why not on TV "news" programs. Even organ-grinder monkeys got paid. Hey, that must be why Olbermann is still on the air.

Checkbook journalism

While one can debate the ethical and journalistic considerations of paying for an interview, let us not forget the other side of the equation. News outlets like CNN and MSNBC are not charities and they seek out these interview subjects in the desire to be 'first' and have exclusivity in the hope this increases ratings which increase how much they may charge advertisers. The network is getting paid, why not the person being interviewed too?

Checkbook Journalism

Journalists and the companies they work for, as has been noted by other posters, have been doing this for decades, if not centuries.

I would point out that nobody trusts journalists anymore like they used to. Especially since the Dan Rather hoax re George Bush: "The facts were wrong, but the story was right.

It's not just individual journalist's biases; it's the sometimes obvious agendas of them, the vast majorities leaning to the left. They cleverly try to hide these agendas as being factual news, but anyone with an ounce of skepticism can see through this after matching the headline with the following story and "facts."

A sorry situation.

checkbook journalism

Buy the truth at any cost,but never sell it or it will depart from you. If that is true then the one that sells the truth is at fault not the buyer.

paid for news

Why is it wrong to pay for a news story? It's not. Simple question, simple answer. Journalists feel that because they are jounalists that they have an intrinsic right to some other persons knowledge without having to pay for it. They don't. The knowledge of any given person may be sold if that person chooses to sell it, and there happens to be a buyer. This doesn't mean the knowledge is tainted, it just means someone was willing to give up some cash to attain it, and that irritates most jouenalists, who happen to be socialistic in their way of looking at society. There are still capitalist in the world and they know when they have something of value. This doesn't make them bad people, this makes them smart! This terrorism story had lots of other passengers on the plane that would most likely have given there story free, but the mainstream outlets wanted the story from the guy who jumped the terrorist and he was smart enough to ask "Where's the beef?" I don't blame him for a second. I don't care if someone pays him for his story. I just want to hear his story.If CNN was willing to give him ten grand for a fuzzy picture and his story, then I will be watching that story on CNN, not there cheap competition, who aren't willing to do what it takes to get the "Big Story".

Checkbook Journalism

Maybe the Tea Parties should be charging a fee to be covered...perhaps then...they'd be covered. Hmmm...

Capitalism

So Mr. Schuringa tooted his own horn and tweaked the story to promote his bias and self-interest. Is this not what CNN does all the time? At least he, unlike CNN, made some money while doing so. Nice to see that good old-fashioned capitalism has not been entirely squelched in Obama's socialist paradise.

don't forget the 95/5 rule

its a derivative of the 80/20 rule. this time 95% of the readers look at 5% of the stories. so, 4 stories that get read, would beat out 40 stories that don't get read. so in the bean counting of journalist pay, the few big stories make up for the cost differential. its like the sizzle, which is only about 5% of the steak, but its what sells.

Proliferation of outlets...weakens Journalism

The mutation of Journalism to ShowBiz has been going on for years. There are now far too many news outlets...with too many assignment editors and producers in panic mode every day trying to fill the time slots. This expansion has diluted the quality of Journalists and made far too many folks famous for more than their "15 mintues".... I spent 25 years in TV news before getting into private business...and I feel that 24 hour a day news is damaging this country...not by making more people aware...but by weakening the foundations of Journalism

checkbook journalism

Ha, I think it\'s funny that we have endure 2 years of fake news coverage of Obama in hopes that he and the liberal congress will bail out the newspaper and television news, but it\'s only checkbook journalism if it involves paying for a picture or flying someone\'s kid home. Ignoring important news that casts a poor light on your chosen one is just good journalism, I suppose.

Yeah but

Sure, but by the same token, there are plenty of people willing to act in a film, publish their manuscript, play a professional sport, etc... etc... without any compensation other than the enjoyment of it. And my cousin will fix my car for free. Leveraging something desirable in your possession is, at the end of the day, how everyone gets to eat.

Worse than Checkbook - Schmaltz

When a journalist pays a source with a promise to sugarcoat his character, the consequences are chilling. This was common in the Soviet Union's heyday. But the worst example was Dan Rather's interview with Saddam Hussein. Saddam, for those too young to remember, was a heavy hitter in the big leagues of Civilian Death. No Mao, Stalin or Hitler, his numbers were moving up on Pol Pot and he still had years to play. Rather's revolting act of prostitution ended with him sweetly asking the blood-stained tyrant, "When will I see you again?" Better to pay a source with a check than schmaltz. At least that way you can write your own story.

Checkbook journalism

OMG, I get it now. When CNN, or FOX, or ABC talk about having an \"exclusive interview\" - that\'s codespeak for \"we paid for this story so you will only get it here\" God I have been duped. I hate the traditional media with a passion. Thank you for this blog!

Checkbook Journalism

Being a freelance photographer, let's say I'm out shopping on my off day and a major news event takes place. I pull my gear out from under the groceries and take photos. Do I not have a right to sell those to the highest bidder? I'm not talking about sleazeball celebrity chasing; just real hard spot news. As far as a network or newspaper paying for a story, how about when a journalist and/or TV talking heads come out with books of their own stories to make a profit? I guess that's okay as long as the newspaper or network gets a cut of the profits too. What happened to the days of getting three verifiable sources before reporting on a story? That's long gone. It's now about being the first with an "exclusive" and if the news is erroneous, well that can just be fixed with a "sorry" afterwards. You want 24/7/365 in your face news? This is the ugly stepchild of that.

Pay for Play

To those who have been saying "why not?" when it comes to peddling for stories, I would say this: I've worked in the business a long time and have found a lot of people willing to say anything for a price. But fewer will lie when it is just their honor (and no cash) at stake.

MSNBC Hypocrites

Madcow and Olbermannic won't report.

the story is worth something

I disagree with your position on this. If I have a good story and millions of people want to hear it and you are going to sell that newspaper/airtime and make money for your news organization with it, then don't expect to get me for free. How hypocritical! If you want a free story, go find it yourself. your young budding reporter may not sell one paper with his 200 stories (they may fill space but who will buy it for his stories? probably very few if he is of the same cloth as current reporters), but one story from a hero may sell many. When you buy a story, do your journalistic duty and ensure it is true, then your false arguement obout getting the truth is over. In truth, a Hero's story isn't news - its just human interest - news is what story develops out of his story - a real journalist will find one.

Detroit terror witness

This Dutch guy is one of you people. He is a journalist. He knows how the system works-just like you. Journalists are like used car salesman..

NBC

Parent company rcv'd big $$$ from Govt.. so in return they do not cover or report the true story of the Obama Administration, Take over of Healthcare, and the false global warming data.. looks like they have a track record..

Checkbook journalism

I wonder about ABC, the news network which the White House gave exclusive photos to of the bomber's underwear.

This is also the sole news network that was invited into the White House to air Obama's Health Care speech, as you might remember.

So while there was no money involved, presumably, there is no objectivity.

Why only publishers can profit?

It seems hypocritical to criticize an eyewitness for wanting to make a little money off a story from a profit-making news network which sells commercial time before and after his interview. Where is it written in stone that only the media organization is entitled to profit?

Cash & Carry

Any journalist willing to PAY for a story is also willing to SLANT a story.

Checkbook Journalism

If Couric gets paid 13mil merely for her personal political opinion why not $10,000 for a picture and lousy interview? Seems only fair.

Today's so-called journalists have given real journalists a bad name much like jihadists have given all of Islam a bad name.

Checkbook journalism

It\'s not smart to pay.

Motivated by greed, some paid sources lie or embellish. People here who cite the tradition of the print rags and television news mags should be aware that they frequently get burned by those sources they pay.

And, they are forced to settle a lot of lawsuits.

In this era of easy, professional tech edits and forgeries, let the buyer beware.

What! me worry?

Paying a person to get a lead on a story? Big deal. After the three major news networks, CNN and most reporters sold their soul to Obama, that's nothing.
News is now days nothing more than an advertising media anyway.

Sure, pay for news

Obviously the solution to the alleged problem is full disclosure. If the network uses the picture and/or interview, they should initiate the report by disclosing the amount paid to the source. Isn't it about time the news people had to pay for what they turn around and sell?

Check Book Journalism

I think it's a bit hypocritical for anyone to think someone shouldn't get paid for a story when news agencies and networks make millions from their stories or programs. At one time; the news divisions for most networks was the most profitable division for a network. Therefore, why should someone give away a story to a network that will make millions on the news?

Pay for photos SOP everywhere

I worked as a freelance photographer and writer for several news organizations and was paid by the photo. This is something done by every newspaper right down to your local weekly; so, I have no problem with anyone getting paid for selling one time rights or all rights to any image they might wish to peddle.

Making an interview contingent upon purchasing a photo, though, is the problem. That's where ethics should have kicked in and CNN should have taken a pass.

Paying for stories

Why should I, the holder of exclusive information, not be paid to share it with the newspaper? The ink, paper, reporters, carriers are all paid for their part in providing the news. If I have the only photograph a newsworthy event I should just give it away to every news agency making a request?

Pay For Stories

Why NOT get paid? It is a business and the interview is feedstock to make the product sold to the public.

The quality of the product whether paid for or not is the real issue. Simply because someone is willing to be interviewed and take or not take money for it does not mean it is valid, meaningful information. Journalism today is shoddy, mediocre, and biased. The complaint should not be paying sources but paying journalist for such mediocre often wrong stories that lack the integrity of the past.

After being a subscriber to a newspaper since the 40's, the newspaper no longer gets delivered to my house. Why pay for such fodder?

cnn paying vs hiring journalists

I don't know how you arrive at your conclusion on the math. An employer hiring an entry level journalist at just 30k is going to pay much, much more than just the salary. There is vacation, sick leave, health care contributions, 401k if that's available, severance. The 30k salary soon becomes 60k when the entire package is taken into consideration. Also, video doesn't make errors or have a political bias or need training or supervision.

To be fair

I see the folks from Drudge, are bashing CNN and MSNBC, and they have a valid point. However look at my last comment, FOX & Drudge is just as guilty. There are many flavors of zombie Kool Aid my friends. Its all simple propanganda, bought and paid for by two completely different parties, both with the same goal. Its a Ying and Yang propanganda machine for the sole purpose to keep American preoccupied and enslaved.

Simply don't fall for it people. Do your own research to get the truth. Take every news story with a grain of salt, regardly what source you got it from.

Journalists

We actually HAVE journalists anymore?? I'd assumed the media only hired spin doctors....

checkbook journalism

how ironical that we complained about ordinary people making gain of their \\\"REA Life \\\" experience and the story they tell impact and REALLY INFORM Americans. Absolutely I agree that they be paid. Compare to some bias liberal drive by media and overpaid anchor news reader who distort news and EVEN FABRICATE NEWS and issues such as some journo from NY TIMES or Remember Dan Rather ? who got paid millions. Hey -I call this job sharing . It hurt the old style journalism but the REAL American love Jasper style joutnalism , so i say more power to his kind. bring them on.

The Alphabet

I don't understand what all the Hubub is, with paying for some plane tickets? That's the LEAST of the stuff that NBC does.
How about the FACT that their CHAIRMAN - Jeff Immelt - practically has a chair at Obamas' dinner table, with his name on it? Or the the total COVER UP JOB, every time this Administration SCREWS UP? And it's not just NBC. It's ALL those Alphabet News Stations. ABC. CBS. CNN. MSNBC. The 'Talking Points Networks'. (Remember. They FACT CHECKED a scetch from Saturday Night Live)
We have a total MARXIST in the White House, who means to turn us in to CUBA. A FAR LEFT IDEOLOG who's only recollection of The Cold War, is that THE BAD GUYS WON. A Super Majority of Fellow Travelers in Congress, who used to march in the streets carrying "BETTER RED THAN DEAD" signs, because they hated REAGAN more than they did Andropov. (see how the Dead DRUNK - Teddy Kennedy - sent correspondents to Andropov, offerring his help, for his upcoming SUMMIT with OUR PRESIDENT)
Where are the UNEMPLOYMENT stories? Where are the SOUP LINE stories? The FORECLOSURE stories? Where's the DAILY COUNT of our Military Dead? And WHERE'S BIN LADEN? I thought this LYING SACK OF PUKE was "gonna get Bin Laden"?
NBC paid for a plane ticket? That's what you've gotta do, when you refuse to REPORT any REAL NEWS. You gotta report SOMETHING come airtime.

Hypocrite

Callin someone a hypocrite is code for 'I am doing this and want you to shut up about it'.

NBC News??

I didn't know NBC had a news department. I thought they were sold by Immelt long ago to the Obama administration. NBC is nothing more than a propaganda machine now.

Checkbook This

Checkbook journalism is wrong. Period. Over. It should be dead and buried. If somebody wants to get paid or get some perk for a news story, they can take their story elsewhere and ther rest of the media who won't pay can cover it when it's a day old.

The real problem is that there is no integrity in the news gathering business anymore. Those who practice it are called old school and those who don't, run to air with half baked stories, fact errors, rumors and paid for stories. I have been in and around this business for 30 years. The so-called leadership in this business are not only short on integrity, they're short on vision and ability to deliver. News budgets have been slashed, quality reporting by qualified reporters has been diminished, children with digital cameras are the rage. It's a sad day and this episode is just another chapter in a long saga of journalism off the rails. The blame rest squarely with news directors, vps and corporate owners for this pantload that supposed to wow the public their story telling. It's a crock.

FRINGE MEDIA

Let's face it. CNN is not even considered a real news network. Who really cares what this group does considering their limited to no viewers.... Keep doing what your doing CNN...You and MSNBC are doing steller work. Please keep us informed on Oblama's wife's dress color....important stuff that we really need and want to know....

Media and truth, blocking, secrets.

Can any one in the Media say "I compromise my integrity." No, I didbn't think so, simply because since Obama's election you seem to be under a threat to play it the way the WH says to play it. The Tea Parties last Summer were essentially large mass events that were not covered. Mis-steps of the WH are just beginning to be seen. The stories of the unemployed and Homless are not even making it down the line and not enough of them. and finally, and most chilling, a second arrest from the aircraft that was almost blown up. A man was seen being taken into custody. What is thuis a secret police arrest???

schuringa cnn interview

so you think the TV interview with schuringa lacked emotion? the guy speaks ESL english. his english is very good, but remember the man is dutch and lives in hollandm. all language nuance goes out the window.

Terrorist, dutch interview

Never interview a dutchman, they are all errogant, hardheaded, and idiots.

Commenters' confusion

I think some of you here are really confused. Look at all the comments along these lines:

-- "Why should I, the holder of exclusive information, not be paid to share it with the newspaper?"

-- "Why NOT get paid?"

-- "it's a bit hypocritical for anyone to think someone shouldn't get paid for a story"

-- "If I have a good story and millions of people want to hear it ... then don't expect to get me for free."

-- "It seems hypocritical to criticize an eyewitness for wanting to make a little money"

Did any of you read the actual piece you're commenting on? It's addressed to journalists, not to sources. Nobody is "criticizing" an eyewitness for seeking cash. They're criticizing journalists who would pay it.

Whether it's ethically proper for a witness to seek payment isn't the point here. It's irrelevant. The point is that it's not ethically proper for journalists to make that payment.

2 cents

The National Enquirer may pay for it's stories, but let's remember that they were the only ones to report on John Edwards screwing around on his wife while she was dying from cancer.

CNN has to pay to get an exclusive story because they have a tiny audience. Of course, the reason they have a tiny audience is because they spin, distort and conceal stories that don't agree with their political agenda.

Fox might be biased, but at least they let you know a story is out there.

If you only watch CNN, you would think the Tea Parties were nothing more than a few hundred religious nuts, that John Edwards was faithful, that Obama is nearly perfect, and what is this "climategate" I hear people talking about?

They put the nails in their own coffin, and the way they see it $10,000 is a cheap way to pull a few out.

The National Enquirer

Because The National Enquirer always releases half-baked paid-for-stories no one believes them when they actually get a newsworthy story. Their journalistic integrity is so low people often buy their rags as entertaining fiction because often that's exactly what their "news" stories are.

crappy photo for cash

The doosh will have to pay 50% in taxes on his lousy crappy picture profit and spend the res tof his life being called names.. and rightfully so..