Money in Journalism

By Xiyuan Liu
xl119608@ohio.edu

Just as Robert said, "being paid is one of the things that distinguish journalists from scholars". In my opinion, I think the fact that journalist is a profession allows journalists to move the text and words out of the ordinary article, and made it a "product" that is worth paying and taking a look at. In this matter, one inevitable job of a journalist is to make sure that the product is attractive, and in some way novel to the majority.

However, the thing is, while journalists are being awarded when they have written up great stories, is it absolutely forbidden for them to pay the subjects when regular reasons and request just wouldn't get the subject talking? Or as the author pointed out, when the "final product" is selling at big time, should we give something in return to the subjects? In the article "Checkbook Journalists Revisited", Robert seems to doubt the strict ethical codes that listed in almost every major newspaper, and talked about this sensitive issue in a comparatively light voice, but is this issue really something we can argue both sides, or it has touched the boundary of being an ethical journalist.

Honestly, I think the ethical code-"The Times does not pay sources for information" from New York Times exists for a reason. Money, when paid to subjects, does not only affect subjects' attitudes towards the issue, but also affect the objectiveness of the journalist. Journalists, after giving out money, may subconsciously set up an expectation for the subject, and thus lead the conversation, and even the answers to what the journalists hope to obtain. In this sense, money has done nothing good but makes things more complicated and convoluted.

A very good case that can reinforce my opinion is what happened early this year on Fox News. Apparently, Palin, another Fox News contributor was paid to accept the interview in Hannity’s show, and Fox News, was once again been called a not legitimate news station.

In fact, I feel that when you have to pay someone for information, journalists, as the creator of the “products”, all the sudden become the buyers of the “particular materials they needed” instead of building on what really happened, and that, no need to say, can sure impair the credibility of a journalist.