Should Media be required by law to disclosure $ for stories?
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:49 pmWould the media landscape change much if media outlets - print, radio, tv, internet etc - were required to publicly disclose if they paid a subject for a story, and if so, how much was paid? This notion also contemplates circumstances where money is paid in lieu to a charity.
For example, media outlet x pays citizen y $800 towards getting a "bit more credibility" for their story. Maybe an eyewitness account with a couple of photos.
Or, media outlet (a) pays citizen (b) $50,000 to tell the story of how they survived an ordeal.
Or, photographer (k) is paid $30,000 for the first photo of someone, eg David Hicks, or the newborn child of a celebrity.
No doubt the media organisations would scream "commercial-in-confidence" all day and night, but it might actually change the way in which their reader's perceive the article, and indeed change the way in which media outlets report on a particular 'story' - including their angle.
After all, politicians are required to declare a register of interests, and media presenters (following the 'cash for comments' saga) are supposed to similarly make it clear if they receive payments from a sponsor. The difference here is in the outgoings paid - and needless to say, we all remember the Diana vs the Paparazzi story.
Thoughts?
For example, media outlet x pays citizen y $800 towards getting a "bit more credibility" for their story. Maybe an eyewitness account with a couple of photos.
Or, media outlet (a) pays citizen (b) $50,000 to tell the story of how they survived an ordeal.
Or, photographer (k) is paid $30,000 for the first photo of someone, eg David Hicks, or the newborn child of a celebrity.
No doubt the media organisations would scream "commercial-in-confidence" all day and night, but it might actually change the way in which their reader's perceive the article, and indeed change the way in which media outlets report on a particular 'story' - including their angle.
After all, politicians are required to declare a register of interests, and media presenters (following the 'cash for comments' saga) are supposed to similarly make it clear if they receive payments from a sponsor. The difference here is in the outgoings paid - and needless to say, we all remember the Diana vs the Paparazzi story.
Thoughts?