This is the practice of obtaining stories through making payments to an involved person. Generally seen as a negative form of journalism, compared to legitimate and traditional investigations. Can bypass moral implications in order to get the story. Professionals need to get paid (doctors, politicians etc.) as the 'official source' to will give their professional (and therefore respectable) opinion on an issue.
Ban the practice?
+ can influence outcomes of trials
+ can be biased
+ effectively bribing people to disclose information
- can be a legitimate way to reimburse someone for exclusivity
- 'better' stories, therefore sells more newspapers
Clear arguments for and against.
ReplyDeleteNow - Find specific cases to support your arguments. When has the payment effected the outcome of the case or story?
You could also comment on the pressure put on journalist to be first with a story. Does this increase the likelihood that journalist will operate in a less than legitimate way?