Is there a future for chequebook journalism?
• Claire Hill
A US ethicist warns that treating news as a commodity will eventually destroy journalism as a public benefit
The traditional reporter’s tools, legs, notepad and a tape recorder, have slowly been replaced with the agent, the chequebook and the rights agreement, but all that could be about to change if new legislation is brought in.
Picture: The Sun newspaper obtained Ronnie Biggs the trainrobber's exclusive story and for him to fly back to the UK and prison: a typical case of chequebook journalism? Or a case of patriotic duty?
Chequebook journalism can be described as, ‘The practice of paying someone for a news story and especially for granting an interview’, (Britannica 97 CD-ROM) or as, ‘The payment of large sums for exclusive rights to material for (especially personal) newspaper stories’, (Encarta 98 CD-ROM). It is not however just confined to newspapers as all forms of the media partake in it but it is the national tabloids and women’s magazines that use this form of journalism the most though. Chequebook journalism has become more popular because of the changing times, W Nissen (Editor of Women’s Day) said that:
(In) the old days good journalism was getting the story first. Nowadays, in the highly competitive field I work in, that isn’t enough and if there is another means that can ensure we get a story that will increase circulation by 20 per cent, it is a business decision I am not going to walk away from. (Nissen, 1997)
The term chequebook journalism can cover a variety of areas and so is hard to classify, as there is often disagreement. Some say it is paying for personal-experience interviews but others include payment for news interviews, lifetime exclusivity, news tips, still pictures, and video clips. What is classed as payment can also vary. It is easy to disguise payments as expenses and they can take the form of, ‘luxury items, legal bills, consultancy fees, accommodation and travel.
(Cropp, 1997, pp212-216).
One of the first forms of chequebook journalism happened in the early 1980’s, this was the practice of paying MP’s, not in Government, a small fee. It was decided though that public appearances were part of political life and so the fee was not appropriate. Those MP’s that were frequently interviewed complained about this and so Editors who worried about loosing interviews began to pay disturbance fees to avoid the no-payment rule, guidelines now caution against it though.
A more recent example of a different kind of chequebook journalism involves Rupert Murdoch. His company News Ltd. had a contract with Sydney’s Olympic Games organizers, which gives his newspapers first coverage rights to ticketing programs and the Olympic torch. The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance expressed concern over this and the MEAA’s Federal secretary, Mr. Chris Warren, described the deal as, ‘broadly analogous to chequebook journalism’, and, ‘a very serious development’. He continued by saying:
I’ve never heard of publicly underwritten companies engaging in chequebook journalism. News is a public commodity, people should be able to access (it)…Information can be distorted. If you’re paying, you treat it differently and less critically. (Korporaal and Evans, 1999)
The more traditional and most controversial form of chequebook journalism is paying criminals and witnesses for their stories. The West murders and subsequent trial provided many opportunities for payments to be made. It has been reported that fees were hundreds for lesser witnesses, thousands for more important witnesses and one hundred thousand for one witness (Wilson, 1996, pp292-295).
During this period its use increased but, ‘it was a tarnished triumph for chequebook journalism because very soon there were powerful calls for the practice to be banned’. A code agreed by newspapers under the auspices of the press complaints commission states that payments to criminals are frowned upon but it does not forbid them. The trail caused this code to be tightened and three ‘tests’ were thought of to avoid contempt, ‘was the payment in the public interest; did it influence the witness’s evidence; and was it disclosed to the court’ (Greenslade, 1999, p3).
During the trial the actual law said:
Payment or offers of payment for stories, pictures or information, should not be made directly or through agents to witnesses or potential witnesses in current criminal proceedings…except where the material concerned ought to be published in the public interest and the payment is necessary for this to be done.
(Wilson, 1996, pp292-295)
The practice of payment is now being considered by the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General and the Home Secretary and if they think its necessary the law will be changed. As it stands now they can be prosecuted under the Contempt Act of 1981 if payment ‘creates a substantial risk that … justice… will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’ and the Attorney does not have to prove that a case has been. It has been said though that a law Specifically to make interviews and payments illegal lacks merit as it would create many reasonable objections (Wilson, 1996, pp292-295).
People believe a law is needed as chequebook journalism causes many conflicts. A US ethicist warns that treating news as a commodity will eventually destroy journalism as a public benefit (Kittross, 1996, pp280-284). He continues to say that it effects news in two ways. One that the person selling the story will loose credibility and second the practice destroys credibility of all journalism. By paying for a story the natural progression the interview and story can not take place, as the agenda could be pre-determined. The Editor of the Herald says that:
A commitment that the story be acceptable to the subject is a compromise of journalism. If you’re paying you’re not going to be allowed to ask awkward questions which might be in the public interest (Morris, 1997).
A producer said that payment compromises independence and, ‘Once you make a deal it is very easy to make that deal involve what questions are going to be asked, and how it is going to handled’ (Harrington, 1997).
It has been said that chequebook journalism is a serious impediment to public trust:
That it abrogates the purpose of journalism, which is disclosure. By entering into a deal in which money changes hands, the journalist is, in effect, agreeing to publish what the subject tells him or her rather than what the journalist can find out. The journalist is constrained; the subject has editorial control. (Roger, 1997, p47).
Each time news is paid for credibility is damaged, but not everyone believes this. Some believe that news is a commodity and even though it is not a conventional newsgathering practice it does not mean that chequebook journalism is unethical (Gordon, 1996, pp280-284). It has also been said that it can help in the argument of a persons right to privacy versus the publics right to know. Intrusion of privacy is common place nowadays but through chequebook journalism the news subjects have some control over how this intrusion goes.
The reason chequebook journalism came about was because of the intense pressure to increase sales and ratings and is attacked because they believe that the recipients of the money will invent a different version of events. It is argued though that if the information is checked first there is no reason why someone should not receive money for something that will ultimately benefit those making the payments.
The manipulation of events does not always come from those wanting to make money from a story. Those making the payments can also change the story so that it fits better with the house style or is more dramatic. The National Inquirer paid a couple $5000 for their story then asked them to sign a consent form allowing them to change the interview.
Many argue that chequebook journalism is used because, ‘sometimes you have to make them happen’ (Desmet, 1998, p2). If a paper is not full then stories have to be found to fill it.
A recent case of chequebook journalism involves a woman being paid extra for her story if a celebrity is convicted. This has led to more calls for chequebook journalism to be banned after he was found innocent perhaps because of the contract between the woman and a newspaper. One person who is against chequebook journalism is the Lord Chancellor who said that:
Payments to witnesses, or potential witnesses, by the media, run a real risk of encouraging witnesses to exaggerate their evidence to make it more newsworthy, or to withhold vital evidence from the court and make it available as an exclusive to a newspaper (Lord Irvine, 1999, p2).
However the press complaints commission chairman does not agree with him as he said:
I believe this is only the fifth case in forty years. The evidence up till now is that there’s no need for a law, and self-regulation is working well (Lord Wakeham, 1999, p2).
This case has launched an investigation by the press complaints commission and the Lord Chancellor after the judges comments and a police press officer who said, ‘Chequebook journalism has no place in our legal system. It’s clear that self-regulation in regard to witness payments doesn’t work’ (Inspector Jones, 1999, p3).
Journalists and editors who agree to pay witnesses in criminal trials, such as the Amy Gehring sex assault trial were the boys involved were all offered money from newspapers for their stories will be guilty of a criminal offence which could be punishable by prison under proposals published by the Lord Chancellor on March 5th this year. Another reform could leave media organisations with a bill for millions of pounds in legal costs if material they publish causes a criminal trial to collapse, like in the first trial of the Leeds United Football players. In April last year their trial disintegrated after a story was published in a Sunday Newspaper. The Sunday Mirror is now expected to be liable for all or part of the eight million pounds the trial cost.
Baroness Scotland, a minister in the Lord Chancellor’s department feels there is a ‘real concern’ especially after the judge in the Damilola Taylor murder trial, when the judge through out the evidence of one of the prosecution’s chief witnesses because the fifty thousand pound reward offered by the Daily Mail had acted as an ‘inducement’ to the 14-year-old girl.
However, Professor Robert Pinker, acting Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission believes the code of practice is ‘tough and clear’ and Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors said, ‘There is no evidence that trials have been prejudiced and the media is well aware of its responsibilities to the administration of justice.' He added:
It is patronising to juries to suggest they cannot take proper account of any payments so long as they are made aware of them. However much judges and government ministers might find it distasteful, sometimes payments to witnesses have achieved results where otherwise there might have been no justice. (Satchwell, 2002, p. 3)
The consultation period on the proposed bill runs until the end of May, after which the government would introduce legislation. ‘We are conscious that this is not an offence to be pursued lightly,’ Lord Irvine said, ‘Legislation is to be introduced because there are concerns that the existing self-regulatory regime may not be sufficient on its own to deal with all cases which arise.’ (Lord Irvine, 2002, p. 3)
Chequebook journalism is not well liked by many people (a poll of 14,000 people conducted by Central TV in 1995 found that 82% called for it to be banned) and it can cause problems in trials. If however it is not misused and a person is simply profiting for giving up their time why should they not be paid as the newspaper or television programme will profit from the story. If the story is more delicate then it should be checked thoroughly but if it is true then why should that person not profit from their bad experiences? Chequebook journalism is though completely wrong when a criminal profits from breaking the law, as this could just encourage other criminals.
Has the tide begun to turn on its own though? Well known for spending millions each year on exclusive stories, magazines Hello and OK have for the first time jointly purchased photographs for a heavily reduced amount, and stars in the future are likely to get a lot less for their story.
A blanket ban on chequebook journalism could put many legitimate journalistic practices at risk and threaten press freedom, but only time will tell.© Claire Hill May 2002
email: clarabelle666@hotmail.com
< Back to Index
< Reply to this Article© Hackwriters 2002
