Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.

| July 18, 2015

►Chris Roberts, a longtime member of SPJ’s ethics committee, provided a neutral explanation of the pros and cons of “checkbook journalism”—defined as paying sources who provide information to news organizations. It is standard practice in some nations, but most American news organizations frown on the practice. 

Proponents say that it may occasionally be appropriate to pay, especially if the subjects of news stories are marginalized or otherwise needing help.

Opponents say paying for news can entice people to make up information in hopes of payment, create deals with sources that could hamstring reporting efforts, and turn people into commodities with bidding wars. Finally, paying for news without telling audiences can lead to transparency and trust issues.

Sources:

►British news organizations, especially its tabloids, have a culture of paying for news that is generally different from U.S. news organizations. The U.S. practice is more of an aberration, although American news outlets, especially magazines focused on personalities and famous people, have bought stories. The practice is different in Britain but can be ethically perilous, as Columbia Journalism Review described in a report on questions surrounding the practice at News Corp.

Sources:

►Some of the most infamous cases of news outlets paying for exclusive access to news and newsmakers occurred in 2010 and 2011. This New York Times piece describes the practice at two national news networks.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/business/media/13payments.html

►News executives promised to be more circumspect in the future, but there is reason to question whether the practice of “checkbook journalism” will ever go away, as this analysis from 2019 discusses. 

Source: https://www.thoughtco.com/why-reporters-should-avoid-checkbook-journalism-2073718