Deals like that are dishonest and farcical. But what’s wrong with an open and transparent purchase of newsworthy information? Actual investigators—cops and private investigators—routinely pay for tips, whether in the form of cash or promises of help in reducing an informant’s sentence. It’s hard to see why reporters should be denied access to a technique that’s used all the time in the criminal justice system, where the stakes and standards of evidence are immeasurably higher.
Of course, if The New York Times and other papers don’t want their reporters paying for news, that’s fine. It means that the competitive advantage (for some stories, at least), will continue to go to the outlets that do pay. But it’s hard to argue that papers that abstain from payments are morally or professionally superior to those that do, when the latter are catching important stories that might otherwise go untold.
Meh. Sorry, but I'm not convinced that a general principle is negated by a few instances of "Well, they're doing it!"
Is it possible that some stories might slip under the radar if certain sources never got paid? Possible. Does that mean that all sources should get paid, or that it should be a practice that is encouraged? That's another argument entirely. The original point that encouraging paying sources for stories would encourage sources to provide false information is still a valid criticism. The fact that good journalism *can* be done rarely guarantees that it *will* get done. There's plenty of misinformation in the news as it is. As a few isolated incidents, I don't necessarily think this practice is world-shattering, but as an industry-wide practice that occurs on a daily basis, it seems to provide too much incentive for bad things. Sources are more tempted to lie and journalists, for fear of buyer's remorse, would be more hesitant to not print a story if they discover it's untrue after paying for it.
It's a can of worms that need not be opened, regardless of the bitter sting that may come from a few other folks doing so successfully.
I'm sorry you missed out on those stories, but that doesn't mean the principle isn't worth holding on to.
#1 Posted by TheException, CJR on Thu 2 Jun 2011 at 01:28 PM
Or, yeah, Mr. Cook, you could have probably done some reporting on Senator Ensign, a sitting senator who had his parents pay off the husband of his lover, and browbeat his constituents into giving him a job as a lobbyist to keep him quiet.
Or hey, you could have reported on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's sketchy dealings with Medicare Part D and his very, very good fortune in the stock market with hospital and pharma stocks, managed by his brother, during his term in the Senate.
Or hey, you could have done some reporting on John Boener's bribery on the House floor during the final vote on Medicare Part D.
If you had put in the effort. You probably wouldn't have had to pay for the those stories, either.
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 2 Jun 2011 at 07:09 PM
While they are busy going out of business for lack of revenue, you propose to have news outlets pay sources. Well I for one think it is as Great Idea! And I also belief that when a news outlet publishes a story which is essentially a press release ands might as well be ad copy, they should get paid. Instead the individual journalist take the kick-backs in the for of access and actual payment while their employer (the news outlet) goes unpaid.
The business models of journalism are broken. Let's start over with something a bit more honest and transparent.
#3 Posted by TimothywMurray, CJR on Sun 5 Jun 2011 at 04:48 PM
The Enquirer says it never doled out any money on the Edwards story, but do you believe them?
Is there any reason not to believe them? This is a hell of an insinuation to be tossing around.
I don't read the Enquirer and never will - but have they ever lied about paying sources for information? If so, let's hear it. If not, then what the Hell are you doing?
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 5 Jun 2011 at 04:56 PM
Excellent thinking, and very much on par with Jeff Jarvis's far-reaching vision. Perchance, we shall live to see the day when all news is paid for by the outlet that publishes it, but no reporters are.
Truly a journalistic paradise awaits us.
#5 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Mon 6 Jun 2011 at 01:53 PM
How can you reach John Cook these days? Does anyone know his email address?
#6 Posted by Michael, CJR on Fri 8 Jul 2011 at 09:06 PM