Should Media be required by law to disclosure $ for stories?

[Squawk]

Would 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?

[the big bang]

in a way, i rekon they should make this information public, but thats probably more for my own curiosity than anything else.

but i also see it the same as, for instance, how much a footy club pays a player. might seem weird, but heres how i see it.........

Media Outlet pays citizen for story on how they survived an ordeal
(Channel 9 pays Brant Webb and Todd Russell $2m for their story)

Footy club pays player for his services
(GCFC pays Gary Ablett Jr $938m for his services)

much of a muchness really IMO.