ABC News - Guilty of Checkbook Journalism?

Updated March 19, 2010
ABC Is Guilty of Checkbook Journalism
By Dan Gainor
- FOXNews.com

The revelation that ABC News paid Casey Anthony $200,000 demonstrates how rapidly the media landscape is changing.

The term checkbook journalism has always referred to sleazy outfits so desperate to put some scandal in front of the public that they paid to get the story. That accusation now lands squarely on the desk of ABC News and the network is denying it lamely.

more at the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/19/dan-gainor-abc-news-casey-anthony-paid/



From the link above:

As ABCNews.com explained, "Intimate, never-before-seen pictures and home videos of the girl and her young mother offer a rare window into Caylee's life." And possibly a rare window into the news practices at ABC.

ABC's undisclosed purchase of those images would appear to violate up to seven separate categories of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. Those violations include one to "Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity" and another to "avoid bidding for news." The network could be criticized especially for failing to disclose the financial relationship while its staff raised questions about people bailing out the defendant.

Click to expand...

The Society of Professional Journalists and the Sigma Delta Chi Foundation believe it is critical to bring the public and the press together to discuss journalism ethics and why they matter, especially in today’s whirlwind media climate. To accomplish this, SPJ and the SDX Foundation are awarding chapter grants for a grass-roots series of interactive public forums in cities across the country that will bring news consumers and journalists together to engage in meaningful dialogue.

much more at site:
http://www.spj.org/ethics.asp

"Which came first - the chicken or the egg?" Did we (that is a generic we referring to people in general) start demanding more and the media gave it to us or did the media start this practice of checkbook journalism (I much prefer the term 'vulture journalism') and we lapped it up, perpetuating the practice?

'If you build it they will come' I watched every show that ABC did about the Anthonys, and there were rumors about paying $$ before they even aired - so I am part of the problem. this also applies to the big $$ professional athletes, movie stars, etc. get - we will pay to see them.

"closing the barn door after the horse gets out" It is going to be very hard to go back to the way it used to be. With instant news via the internet, etc. media outlets have to scramble to get viewers - because viewers generate revenue. I can just see all the major networks paying for and particpating in these grass roots forums, and nothing, absolutely nothing will change. But they will say, we listened to you, we really did.

"It is what it is" - Adveritisers buy air time on programs they think will give them the the best bang for their buck. Superbowls are the best example of this - the networks will continue to air shows that they think will bring in viewers and the advertisers will continue to buy air time for them.

Very cynical of me I know. I am sure ABC is not happy about the adverse publicity and maybe, just maybe, it will make other medial outlets hesitate about doing the same thing in the future. But I don't need a crystal ball to tell me that the exact same thing is going to happen again, somewhere down the line - the people involved with just do a better job of hiding it!

ETA: this is only my opinion, I most certainly am not criticizing anyone else's thoughts on this subject!

LiveLaughLuv said:

Updated March 19, 2010
ABC Is Guilty of Checkbook Journalism
By Dan Gainor
- FOXNews.com

The revelation that ABC News paid Casey Anthony $200,000 demonstrates how rapidly the media landscape is changing.

The term checkbook journalism has always referred to sleazy outfits so desperate to put some scandal in front of the public that they paid to get the story. That accusation now lands squarely on the desk of ABC News and the network is denying it lamely.

more at the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/19/dan-gainor-abc-news-casey-anthony-paid/



From the link above:

Click to expand...

That being the case someone may want to grab that surveillance video which landed in the hands of LE which clearly shows Baez meeting with the producer for an extended period of time that evening. ABC may need to gather up all those receipts, phone logs and appointment books and make them magically disappear. But then there is Cindy. She did tell DC he had permission to talk with this specific producer. Drags, too late. DC and Hoover have already mentioned this incident in their depositions and interviews with LE.

So now does checkbook journalism broaden its definition from NE and gossip magazines to include all forms of journalism that is willing to pay some bucks for a story? Way to go ABC, finally you're being called out for your dirty dealing.


Novice Seeker

Macushla said:

"Which came first - the chicken or the egg?" Did we (that is a generic we referring to people in general) start demanding more and the media gave it to us or did the media start this practice of checkbook journalism (I much prefer the term 'vulture journalism') and we lapped it up, perpetuating the practice?

'If you build it they will come' I watched every show that ABC did about the Anthonys, and there were rumors about paying $$ before they even aired - so I am part of the problem. this also applies to the big $$ professional athletes, movie stars, etc. get - we will pay to see them.

"closing the barn door after the horse gets out" It is going to be very hard to go back to the way it used to be. With instant news via the internet, etc. media outlets have to scramble to get viewers - because viewers generate revenue. I can just see all the major networks paying for and particpating in these grass roots forums, and nothing, absolutely nothing will change. But they will say, we listened to you, we really did.

"It is what it is" - Adveritisers buy air time on programs they think will give them the the best bang for their buck. Superbowls are the best example of this - the networks will continue to air shows that they think will bring in viewers and the advertisers will continue to buy air time for them.

Very cynical of me I know. I am sure ABC is not happy about the adverse publicity and maybe, just maybe, it will make other medial outlets hesitate about doing the same thing in the future. But I don't need a crystal ball to tell me that the exact same thing is going to happen again, somewhere down the line - the people involved with just do a better job of hiding it!

Click to expand...

touche'. But wasn't there a time when respectable news agency's reported on crimes along with any included information from a professional and ethical standard that provided us with just as much information?

I'm so tired of people making money off of the victim who is commonly dead. There's something wrong with our morals when we take someone, who has been killed and mostly likely suffered shortly before their death, and use them to generate income.

Novice Seeker

Novice Seeker said:

touche'. But wasn't there a time when respectable news agency's reported on crimes along with any included information from a professional and ethical standard that provided us with just as much information?

I'm so tired of people making money off of the victim who is commonly dead. There's something wrong with our morals when we take someone, who has been killed and mostly likely suffered shortly before their death, and use them to generate income.

Novice Seeker

Click to expand...

I agree with you 100% NS. There was a time when news and reports were respected, respectable and ethical. Sadly, that is, for the most part, no longer true. I was just giving my opinions on how it all came to this. I think I had best go back and add in my opinion to my original post. I don't want anyone to think I was talking about them, I was justing 'opining' in general.

I can't find anything on licensing fees or money paid out...but this sparked my curiosity..

Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

Click to expand...

You know, I am pondering all of this, and recalling the LUXURIOUS surroundings in which the Anthony clan spent their time when Caylee's skeleton was found, and I am thinking we have the answer to who the OTHER persons were who were paid for the licensing rights to the video and photo library...NOW I understand completely! I think the end deal that is rumored for $700,000.00 after the trial is going to George and Cindy and NOT Casey at all...they could not set it up to go to Jose-total ethics violation-they could not set it up to go to Casey-she MAY be found guilty. George and Cindy are up to their necks in this deal, and the Ritz Carlton and the little tag along in court from ABC is evidence enough for me!:furious:

I have to say ....i would have never seen all the pictures of Caylee Marie ...if ABC had not paid for all of them . Whatever kind its called its what has kept me on the edge of my chair for ....??? how many years now ?
Justice for Caylee (anyway little girls wants to get the truth to us is fine with me) !

Macushla said:

I agree with you 100% NS. There was a time when news and reports were respected, respectable and ethical. Sadly, that is, for the most part, no longer true. I was just giving my opinions on how it all came to this. I think I had best go back and add in my opinion to my original post. I don't want anyone to think I was talking about them, I was justing 'opining' in general.

Click to expand...

I owe you an apology. My post was 100% in supporting your thoughts and if it came across as something otherwise then please accept my apology.


Novice Seeker

During that hearing I specifically looked for the gentleman from ABC who attends all of the court hearings with the Anthonys. He was right there. Wonder why he wasn't called before the judge and questioned? But, he does make Cindy smile.:dance:

Novice Seeker

DISNEY should be for kids not the momster that murdered her child!

Think about it. There was more than one person who they bought the rights from. The $200,000.00 could have gone to George and Cindy, with Jose acting as the attorney, and then George and Cindy signed it right over to the defense. THAT would be on the edge of ethics violation, but not quite, right? So there probably IS truth to the rumor about the seven hundred thou, it just is not slotted to go directly TO Jose...I would bet good money he has a contract for payment that is set to come AFTER trial, FROM good ole George and Cindy. Remember he NEVER said he was doing this pro-bono...never did say it.

Just for the record, when ABC bought the pictures, video's etc, KC was not charged with murder yet.
I also wonder if other broadcasting entities could have paid ABC for the use of some of the now ABC owned material.
I do agree that the deal makes your stomach turn. And I do find the characters offering the stuff for sale to ABC ( and probably other stations, trying to secure top dollar), much more disgusting than ABC.

I still can' t help but think that Geraldo is somehow involved in all this....

The local media (who probably paid nothing) treated the A's very differently than the national shows the A's went on.Local got to the point.National treated them with kid gloves.More than money was involved in granting those interviews.IMO the A's put conditions on what could asked of them.That's NOT journalism,that's entertainment.
I know many have brought up this point,but I must repeat.....families of MISSING children do not sell their pictures and videos.They want those images out there. Selling photos of Caylee,even before KC was arrested for murder, is a honking ,big red flag.They weren't looking for a missing child at all.They were funding KC's defense.

ETA: If they did it for the A's they are doing it for others. Makes me wonder about anything they do a story on ,now.

Novice Seeker said:

During that hearing I specifically looked for the gentleman from ABC who attends all of the court hearings with the Anthonys. He was right there. Wonder why he wasn't called before the judge and questioned? But, he does make Cindy smile.:dance:

Novice Seeker

Click to expand...

BBM Just wondering why ABC is still hanging around.. Do the A's still have some kind of deal happening???
:waitasec:

Bforster said:

BBM Just wondering why ABC is still hanging around.. Do the A's still have some kind of deal happening???
:waitasec:

Click to expand...

Doubtful they would let him get the exclusives for free. JMO :furious: :banghead:

In light of the ABC debacle with the KC case I want to offer a few references about this issue. I know the thread topic is ABC but in fairness to the whole story I think it prudent to point out that they do not stand alone in this ethically deficient arena.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nbc-cnn-abc-practicing-checkbook-journalism-sounds-familiar-2010-1
Snip...Stacey Woelfel, chairman of the Radio, Television and Digital News Association, calls paying for sources “a ticket on a one-way flight to ruin for our profession.” But isn't checkbook journalism old news?

In this excellent piece in Washington City Paper, she says: “It’s unconscionable to think about a bidding war for sources on important—or unimportant—news stories.”

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1001/03/rs.01.html
Snip....Jasper Schuringa is by any definition a hero. He's the Dutch passenger on that Northwest Airlines flight who jumped on the Nigerian who was trying to detonate a bomb as the plane headed for Detroit. Schuringa sold the television writes to a grainy photo he took on board to CNN for a reported $10,000 and the print rights to "The New York Post" for $5,000. And he granted his first two interviews to CNN and "The New York Post."


http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=38291
Snip... Last week word got out that NBC chartered a plane to bring David Goldman and his son back from Brazil in an apparent exchange for an interview on Today.Andy Schotz, chairman of the ethics committee for the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), issued a statement blasting NBC. “Paying for access taints the credibility and neutrality of what you are doing,” Schotz said. “There is now a motive for people to be helping you, to be telling you what you want to hear.”

Bforster said:

BBM Just wondering why ABC is still hanging around.. Do the A's still have some kind of deal happening???
:waitasec:

Click to expand...

\

Me too. Why do I ALWAYS see a post that says that the ABC guy is sitting beside CA in court. What's that all about?

MOO