Check, Please!

By: Susannah Sachdeva
ss133506@ohio.edu

To Pay, or Not to Pay: That is the question journalists need to answer.
"Checkbook journalism" is a fiercely debated subject in the media world today. Many journalists frown upon its use but understand that sometimes it is necessary in order to get the story. Others completely eschew the idea and have their own blacklists for those who take part in this kind of journalism.

The Columbia Journalism Review printed an article last year, titled "Checkbook Journalism Revisited" by Robert Boynton, that began discussing Esquire's use of payment to get interviews with Muhammad Ali and Lt. Calley (of the Vietnam war) in the '60s and '70s, under the Harold Hayes regime. Many journalists associate Esquire with good journalistic integrity and commendable, in-depth articles. Yet, evidently, some of these remarkable articles were made possible by paying the subject of the story.



Most people associate "checkbook journalism" with tabloid magazines and celebrity television, not with high-class publications like Esquire. But, as Boynton points out, many illustrious magazines resort to this tactic from time to time. The problem is that paying for information usually creates an incentive for subjects to lie or embellish the truth. This doesn't happen in every instance of "checkbook journalism" but it is a common side-effect.

One of the most famous cases of "checkbook journalism" was that of the President Nixon interviews by Robert Frost. A series of interviews were conducted by Frost and broadcast on TV in four, separate programs in 1977. Frost televised one of Nixon's most infamous quotes (see video below) and the first of the four television programs brought in 45 million viewers, the largest TV audience for a political interview in history.



All this glory cost Frost dearly, though... it cost him $600,000 to be exact. So we must think: Would Frost have gotten this ground-breaking, record-breaking story if he did not offer financial incentive? I think not.

I'm not legitimizing "checkbook journalism" but I do understand that, in some cases, it may be necessary. Frost enlightened the country, and the world for that matter, on what Nixon truly was thinking during presidency. He conducted interviews of such importance that it was essential for him to pay Nixon, otherwise Nixon was sure to decline the idea altogether.

As Boynton points out in his article, all subjects of articles have their own reasons for agreeing to be interviewed by a journalist, whether it be for fame, revenge, or a multitude of other incentives. Nixon's reasons were probably financial and to gain some support back from the American public. It is my belief that no one puts themselves in the public eye without good reasoning and solid belief that they will benefit from the endeavor in the end. As Boynton wrote, "Regardless of the 'currency' -- whether emotional, ideological, or financial -- journalism always involves a transaction of some kind."

For some, the transaction tends to be financial and while the fact that the subject has been paid may undermine the journalist's reputation on one hand, it may also lead to a story of great importance that was waiting to be uncovered.