Different sides to paying sources

Olivia Bower
ob023312@ohio.edu

Many of the mainstream news organizations in America and their journalists agree that paying for interviews is in bad taste.

But is there a time and place where paying sources is appropriate? Where is the line drawn 

for deciding whether to pay sources for interviews?

Critics agree that paying for information opens doors for that information to be corrupted or sensationalized.

After all, if sources discover that they can be paid for their interviews, there’s nothing stopping them from dragging that process out longer and making up facts to get paid more. And if they realize that networks or publications will put up competing offers for an interview, why wouldn’t they see how high they could drive the payment?

While paying sources is a risky situation in itself, the ethical quandary becomes even greater when looking at the motives behind the payment.

For example, when NBC News paid Reeva Steenkamp’s family for an interview, the network likely had two concerns.

NBC News paid the family of Reeva Steenkamp for an interview. Image via WaPo

Getting the news out

The death of Steenkamp, girlfriend to Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius, who was later charged with culpable homicide, is a very newsworthy issue. Events, especially those ending in the death of a person, that involve noteworthy public figures are always important to audiences, so an interview with the family of the deceased person is something that the audience wants to see. There’s less of an ethical dilemma when the network is simply concerned with reporting another perspective and what the public wants to see.

Improving ratings/getting an “exclusive” story

After “Good Morning America” took the “Today” show’s title of the top-rated morning news show, of course NBC wants to do anything possible to drive up ratings and regain that title. In this case, was the network concerned with reporting the truth or just getting an exclusive story to help its ratings? This is where paying sources may be unethical because the story would be for the network’s own gain.

On the other hand, if NBC was solely concerned with providing more information, could it be said that the reason for the payment was to offset the emotional cost of the interview?

For the Steenkamps and others in similar situations, providing a televised interview about the death of their child couldn’t have been easy.

Is it ethical to pay sources for any emotional distress they may incur when partaking in the interview? There’s a thin line between ethical and unethical.

Payment also brings up the possibility for a conflict of interest between the source and the reporter. Once money exchanges hands, there’s a business deal, and once the reporter and source are in business together, how can the reporter be sure to ask necessary questions, untainted by money?

Except in extreme situations, like those involving death or destruction where sources take on emotional distress, it seems to be more ethical to refrain from paying sources for information.

News that is freely given and not influenced by money has a better chance of being authentic and unbiased.