Sept. 11 has changed many things about the world and how we journalists see it. The events of that day have inspired us to debate what’s wrong and what’s right about our values as citizens and journalists.
Call me old fashioned, naive, even out of touch with reality, as several folks are doing via email in reaction to my comments published in The New York Post. But to me, there is something fundamentally wrong with paying for journalistic content, whether it’s a picture or an interview.
I just can’t accept the current everybody’s-got-to-get-paid culture, a culture that produces get-rich-quick schemes, fast-talking con artists, chopper-flying paparazzi and camouflage-wearing video hunters, all shooting for a payday.
My national anthem is not “Show me the money.”
I am reminded that in the days after the twin towers fell, there were countless reports of people masquerading as journalists, donning FEMA jackets, fire-fighter helmets, coats and t-shirts, doing what ever it took to get to Ground Zero, that place that newsman and military veteran Les Payne, AME at Newsday, recalled as being, “the pit of hell itself, a place that reeks of death.”
Now, on the threshold of the anniversary of this day of infamy, we are faced with the question being posed by 9/11 survivor Edward Fine. The New York Post describes him as a New Jersey businessman “whom fate miraculously saved from the north tower’s 79th floor on Sept. 11.” The paper quoted Fine as saying he’s “simply too busy to talk about that day — unless you dish up the kind of cash his clients pay for his time.” He had given several interviews without compensation.
Stan Honda, the Agence France-Presse photographer who photographed Mr. Fine on two occasions (first on Sept. 11 and again on Sept. 26), said he empathizes with him as an independent business man and supports his right to name his terms.
The question facing journalists: As Mr. Fine makes his request of $500 for an hour-long interview — and a bargain price of $911 for two hours — should we pay?
Said Honda: “I am surprised that so many people think that we do pay for news coverage. I have kept in touch with (Mr. Fine) since last year mostly via email. The second time that I photographed him he was freely giving interviews, but after the Life magazine interview and the six-month anniversary request, he changed his position.”
Several media leaders say that they would have less of a problem with Mr. Fine’s demand if he asked that his fee be donated to one of the Sept. 11 funds, where the media could contribute in a broader way to healing.
Mr. Fine appears to be sticking to his position with integrity and persistence. He turned down Honda’s request to photograph him last month because AFP would not pay.
Mr. Fine did not immediately reply to a Poynter request for an interview.
I stand by my comments to the New York Post: This issue is about integrity, accuracy, authority, fairness, and independence.
America has built its greatness upon a foundation of free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Media outlets set a dangerous precedent when they pay hard currency for pictures and interviews to citizens and practice check-book journalism.
The American news media provide a constitutionally protected service in this free society, unlike many other countries. The product of that service now more than ever needs to be accurate, honest, and valid.
The media have a duty to seek out and report on truths that affect society and to share accurate insights, perspective, context, and opinion about life. That duty is based on trust and credibility, not monetary exchange. As a noble ideal, the relationship between community and media is bonded not by financial gain, but by the sharing of knowledge and experience.
When we pay for stories, we open the door to the illicit exercise of power and to corruption, not to mention the threat of exaggeration and deception.
If we resorted to paying for stories, there would be a disastrous effect on the smaller local newspapers and TV and radio stations that could not compete. I’ll be the first to admit that mine is not a profit-first position, but one of integrity. Our moral compass should guide us to share our feelings and stories because citizens see value in sharing their experiences and the lessons they have learned.
Fundamentally, when people are paid for their stories it threatens the journalistic process. A purposeful, fair enterprise needs be vested in voluntary sharing, not the wishes of the highest bidder.
What a country! Mr. Fine is free to charge, and American media outlets are free to not pay.