Is it wrong for a journalist to be paid a modest fee by a state-supported media entity to provide on-air analysis or commentary? Is it unethical?
A recent article by Dafna Linzer and Paul Kiel that was posted by ProPublica, the new nonprofit investigative reporting outfit, suggested that it is. And the article cited me as one of several media people in possible breach of journalistic ethics.
At issue is Alhurra, the U.S. government-funded Arabic news organization and its practice of paying modest fees to reporters (and political operatives and commentators) who appear on the network. ProPublica, Kiel told me, had compiled a list of 150 or so Washington journalists, former government officials, and lobbyists who had received honorariums for being guests on the channel. And I am on the list. Also among Alhurra's paid commentators have been journalists from Politico, Roll Call, Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, The Des Moines Register, Texas Monthly, Haaretz of Israel, and the Financial Times of London.
Three times this year, Alhurra asked me to appear. The first occasion was on the night of Super Tuesday. I was in Chicago at Barack Obama's campaign rally, and Alhurra producer Julie Zann asked if I could join one of the network's correspondents on the riser in the back of the room and explain to Alhurra's Middle East audience the significance of the election results. Sure, I said. And, she added, I would get a fee, which turned out to be $300. Weeks later, Alhurra invited me to do commentary for four or five hours on the evening of the Pennsylvania primary. I sat in a small television studio by myself during this time, staring into a camera, and waiting to be told I was on air. For that work, I was paid $1000. And a few weeks ago, I appeared on an Alhurra talk show about Washington to explain the sort of journalism I practice and the recent scoops I had obtained. The payment was, I believe, $250 or so. (The pay stub has not yet been filed in my disorganized office.)
None of this was unusual. Of course, both commercial media and slightly-public-funded media (such as NPR) pay for some appearances and commentary. And, as I explained to Kiel, when he interviewed me for the ProPublica article, it is customary for foreign media outlets that are state-supported--such as the BBC and the Canadian Broadcasting Company--to compensate guests for interviews and commentary. I have received such payments in the past (regrettably, only a handful of times). Alhurra was playing by these rules.
Linzer and Kiel did not mention the BBC/CBC practice in the article.
Moreover, Voice of America, something of a sister organization for Alhurra, also compensates journalists who are guests on some of its programs. (VOA and Alhurra are both overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an independent federal agency responsible for all U.S. government-sponsored international broadcasting.) For example, VOA features a weekly showed called "Issues in the News," during which three Washington journalists gab about the top stories of the week. On the most recent edition of the program, Martin Schram, a Scripps Howard columnist moderated a conversation with Don Frederick, the political editor of The Los Angeles Times, and Tom DeFrank, the veteran Washington bureau chief for The New York Daily News.
Frederick told me he received a whopping $100 for the appearance. And Tish King, head of public affairs for VOA and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, says that was a standard fee. "If people are exerting themselves," she remarks, "we want to pay them at least something. We don't even arrange for cars for people to get here." And she defends the practice of compensating guests: VOA and Alhurra "need experts; that's what enriches the programming." (I wonder why the ProPublica piece did not make the connection between Alhurra's practice of paying guest commentators and that of VOA, even though I mentioned this to Kiel.)
ProPublica, working with 60 Minutes, and The Washington Post have each recently produced pieces that depict Alhurra as a mismanaged and wasteful organization. (See here and here.) I'm not writing to defend the network. And if it is indeed a waste of taxpayers' money, perhaps a journalist (in his or her role as a citizen) ought not to work with the operation. I had three interactions with Alhurra that told me little about the overall operation. But the matter of journalists accepting payment for providing commentary to Alhurra is not the easy gotcha the ProPublica piece implied.
The article noted that Kelly McBride, a media ethics specialist, believes that reporters damage their ability to be objective by accepting government money. (I am not a big fan of objectivity--or, that is, the he said/she said journalism practiced beneath the banner of objectivity that often muddies the truth--but I do profoundly believe in accuracy.) Linzer and Kiel cited no other media ethics specialists. But under this standard, should reporters (American or British) tell the BBC to buzz off? Would it be okay to appear on the BBC--and have one's profile boosted--and not accept money? Is it fine for an American journalist to accept money from a foreign state-supported media outfit, but not from one financed by his or her own government? And should journalists always say no to VOA?
As I mentioned to Kiel, I find this an intriguing issue. If the Voice of America (or Alhurra) is producing radio and television programs watched and heard (by whatever the number of people) in foreign countries, don't we want it to represent a full range of views? I noted that as long as I was granted complete editorial freedom to say what I thought, I saw nothing wrong in accepting a modest fee for what was in essence freelance work. ("I don't think anyone can accuse me of going soft on the U.S. government," I said to Kiel.) And I even believe there is something positive about a government-underwritten network using a journalist who has been rather critical of the current administration. Consider the message conveyed to overseas viewers--and, yes, one question is how many people actually watch Alhurra--if they see a U.S.-sponsored media organization providing a platform to the author of The Lies of George W. Bush? Would everything have been proper, from an ethics perspective, if there had been appearances but no fees? But could reporters then be accused of providing unpaid assistance to a government propaganda shop?
There usually is logic in a purist position. I suppose there's a possibility McBride might be right--though I don't see how my "objectivity" was harmed by these Alhurra appearances. (Is a journalist paid for appearing on NBC News or MSNBC tainted because the money comes from General Electric? Some citizens might suspect so, but media ethicists tend not to worry about that.) And perhaps there are some people who believe that a journalist can be bought by a government for a couple hundred bucks. But this does seem a stretch. So, no surprise, I don't view this as a black-and-white issue, and I have no misgivings about having provided paid-for commentary to Alhurra. And if Voice of America wants me to debate Bill Kristol--"George Bush: Greatest President Since Lincoln or a Reason To Adopt a Parliamentarian System?"--for broadcast across the globe, I'd be delighted to do so, with or without the $100.
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Comments
This comes up periodically, so it is useful to remind Washington reporters that they signed a pledge not to take government money when they got their press credentials from the Senate Press Gallery. Some Washington reporters chose to continue getting money from quasi-government entities by declining to get credentials from the Standing Committee of Correspondents.
This is an issue that goes back to the 19th Century in Washington journalism history, to a time when it was difficult to determine who was working for the government and who was a real, valid reporter. I opt for the opinion that you can tell who someone is really working for by whose check they are cashing.
Posted by: Edward Allen
| June 27, 2008 1:04 PM
David, I'm a journalist in Minneapolis. I was recently asked to speak to a group of Minnesota Department of Transportation employees. They offered an honorarium - which I thought was weird. After all, I cover them. I turned it down. I would not accept money from a government entity under any circumstances.
I think this basic principle applies to you.
If it's worth broadcasting your thoughts to their audience, do it for free. If it's not worth your time, pass.
Posted by: David Brauer
| June 27, 2008 2:20 PM
Well, depends on Senate Press Gallery credentials or not. If not, a modest honorarium can be in order if the offering organization is not part of the reporter's (or editor's) 'beat'. If within your reporting or editing duties, then I (not a reporter nor an editor) agree with David Brauer. It a matter of appearing to be unbiased.
Posted by: David B. Benson
| June 27, 2008 9:16 PM
Not being a journalist myself, what DC describes sounds like honest compensation. It's up to a professional in any field to learn the difference between legitimate pay and an amount meant to influence and choose accordingly. That being said, if getting paid conflicts with some previous agreement than the money should be rejected regardless of the amount.
**********
In off topic news, John McCain gets the endorsement to end all endorsements.
'Hanoi Hilton' jailer says he'd vote for McCain
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_on_re_as/vietnam_mccain_s_jailer_7
HAIPHONG, Vietnam - John McCain has an unusual endorsement — from the Vietnamese jailer who says he held him captive for about five years as a POW and now considers him a friend.
Posted by: eyes_open
| June 28, 2008 1:39 AM
I fail to see the difference between being paid by MSNBC, NPR or Alhurra. This is not a question of removing North Korea from the list and adding David Corn to the list. Dozens of commentators are paid daily to appear on news shows. In the past, this included retired officers being paid by both the network and the White House to provide propaganda for an illegal and criminal war. The public cannot be expected to know whom is being paid and who is paying. Objectivity, like beauty, must rely with the eye of the beholder.
The question of ethics is personal. DC knows if he's taking money he shouldn't, and so do the rest of the pundits.
Sounds like a cheap shot by somebody paid to promote an agenda.
Posted by: geof01
| June 28, 2008 8:54 AM
The journalistic ethics issues brought up here are perhaps a bit nuanced for the general reader, especially in regard to "Senate Press Gallery credentials" and such. It's been decades since I studied media ethics for credit in J-school, and was not employed long in the field to be faced with the degree of the questions here. Perhaps this could be dealt with in more depth through the Columbia Journalism Review or some other venue; otherwise, the discussion further gets wrapped up in the building cable media criticism of Alhurra. What is evident is that there is a level of accuracy that apparently has not been reached (so for that, I agree with Mr. Corn), and with more accuracy and attention to details, the level of "objectivity" rises. Although the phrase, "fair and balanced," has been co-opted by one of the cable news networks, it is not a bad set of goals for which one can reach.
The line of work I went into asked, for example, in Pontius Pilate's voice, "What is the truth?" One ancient commentator, in the Apocrypha book of I Esdras, said, "Great is truth, and stronger than all things." Perhaps in cases of fees paid to journalists, honorarium, etc., this includes the acceptance by the communicator that she or he spoke from a balanced position of honest integrity.
Posted by: Wahidiyya Kosmotikos
| June 28, 2008 11:28 AM
I think it is great we live in a place where we can ask ourselves and our journalists these questions. The nuance is one thing but I think it is situational. Circumstance, message, timing, sources, and even the amount are all worthy of consideration.
The appearance of impropriety can have the same effect as impropriety and will always serve your enemies more than those that know the truth.
Posted by: capt
| June 28, 2008 5:41 PM
Surely nobody goes into journalism expecting to get rich?
Posted by: David B. Benson
| June 28, 2008 9:31 PM
Arrmstrong Williams?
lol
Posted by: capt
| June 28, 2008 9:41 PM
Jeff Gannon?
Posted by: capt
| June 28, 2008 9:43 PM
Real Journalists Don't Make $5 Million a Year
Unlike the media's Brokaws and Blitzers, real journalists don't have cozy relationships with the powerful. Real journalists are feared.
http://tinyurl.com/4t7rvq
Posted by: capt
| June 28, 2008 9:45 PM
Jayson Blair?
Not that Bob Woodward or Bob Novak are any better.
A rouges gallery to say the least.
Posted by: capt
| June 28, 2008 9:52 PM
There are huge problems with the media in general and with more than a few of them specifically, none and nothing to do with David Corn.
The gut check I got when I learned Woodward and the WaPo were sitting on bombshell stories that could effect the out come of an election was a violation of journalism ethics the likes of which I cannot endure.
Taking a smal stipend is more an offset of expenses. Hardly an issue in my book.
Posted by: capt
| June 28, 2008 10:00 PM
Mr. Corn,
The fact you take money to express your completely non-objective opinions doesn't surprise me. I could have guessed you were a paid shill after reading some of your writing during the Democratic primary.
What troubles me more is that you masquerade as a journalist, when you are so obviously biased. Your misogyny and bias is a serious breach of ethics. Of course, both transgressions point to more chronic flaws in your character.
Posted by: prof marcia
| June 29, 2008 7:34 AM
It is important to disclose if you are paid to share an opinion or expertise or if you are not paid. It is unethical to be a guest on any media--tv, print, online--and not disclose that you are paid or not. It is obvious who the employees are but less clear about guests. If you are paid, you are more likely to be their as a prop to propagandize a particular viewpoint. As such, and especially being paid, is it unlikely you'll step out of this paid view to express an honest opinion at risk of losing your funding.
On the otherhand, unpaid guests are more likely to be their because they add news value and at least by not being paid, they offer some level of independent thought.
However viewed, disclosure is a prerequisite to credibility. Otherwise, like now, you are outted as a paid hack, nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by: Matthew Weaver
| June 29, 2008 10:59 AM
Prof Marcia, you keep flinging the misogyny charge at any pro Obama voice. Please provide an example of David Corn's writing where he seriously exhibits such an attitude (not one his bits of sarcasm), or please stop with your personal attacks.
Posted by: eyes_open
| June 30, 2008 12:46 AM
Don't dish it out if you can't take it. (capt, eyes_open)
I sure hope all the Obamans who read this blog have the guts to read Paul Krugman's column today in the NYTimes (Monday, June 30).
I'd be interested to ready any comments.
Posted by: Diff
| June 30, 2008 2:12 AM
eyes_open,
My comments to Mr. Corn are not personal attacks. Anyone who writes for the public in a polemic fashion, as does Mr. Corn, must be willing to handle criticism and have the guts to take the disdain his kind of subjective-slur- opinion writing creates. "If you can't stand the fire, get out of the kitchen,"
I have heard it said.
As far as Mr. Corn's misogyny, just read through his threads during the Dem
primary. Or watch any repeats of his TV appearances! He had not ONE positive thing to say about Hillary Clinton. But, he consistently attacked her with baseless smears. These transgressions, in themselves, are enough to crown Mr. Corn as a Mega-misogynist!
If you hope to defend Mr. Corn, do some of your own research and find me
some positive statements Corn made about either of the Clintons during the primary. Then, maybe you'll have some credibility.
Posted by: prof marcia
| June 30, 2008 3:42 AM
Eye's
JITA?
Posted by: capt
| June 30, 2008 7:44 AM
Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must 'kiss my ass' for his support
http://tinyurl.com/5lyv3v
*****
I think this is good news!
HRC will NOT be the VP.
*celebrate celebrate dance to the music*
Posted by: capt
| June 30, 2008 7:52 AM
"I am not a big fan of objectivity"
No kidding. You proved that with your blatant sexism throughout the primary.
Posted by: Patsi
| June 30, 2008 11:33 AM
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."
Ben Johnson
As long as you're not getting paid to speak to someone you're covering (like David Broder, for instance), I don't see the problem.
Posted by: RAM
| June 30, 2008 11:22 PM
Post A Comment