I have never paid for an interview. As corrupt as Las Vegas can be, no celebrities or publicists have ever asked me for cash in exchange for access. I have occasionally been offered a bribe to interview someone and then write about them in a story. But I would never be comfortable holding an interview where compensation was involved in either direction. The readers of Las Vegas Weekly and the other publications I work for have come to us out of the journalism tradition. And so, when Jerry Lewis requires $20,000 to give an interview with Newsweek, as Las Vegas Weekly blogger Steve Friess recently reported on his other site, TheStrippodcast.com, then the answer is obviously going to be no.
Yet, what used to be called "checkbook journalism" is the future. This floodgate opens now that blogs and cable channels and network shows make entertainment that is packaged as news. The question is, how much damage will this do to the actual news? Unfortunately, the truth is that the issue of paying certain people for interviews will not be one that media can control through journalism's ethics. If stars like Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears choose to make interviews a revenue source, they can. Then other problem-plagued stars will follow. Here is the relevant question: Between pay-per-view or a website, will stars have any difficulty finding someone willing to pay for an interview? In general, there is no law against people selling an interview if someone wants to pay them. Therefore the real question, moving forward, seems to be: How public will the media media that pay choose to be about this fact?
That this is a dangerous and slippery slope, as journalism professors endlessly worry, is undoubtedly true. But there are a couple of checks and balances we can be comforted by. Look at one of the ultimate tabloid stories: the aftermath of the death of Anna Nicole Smith. The news stories of money being paid for access was a favorite topic of those who did not gain access to the various factions of her survivors. This sort of compensated access is a logical endpoint not of news but of reality television, where people are paid to offer a portion of their "real" life to television cameras. It is no accident of history that Anna Nicole Smith was a reality-show star, and in addition to interest from that sector of entertainment media, this gave the people in her world an understanding of how to sell a story in today's media market.
But as news, there were still protections for those reporting on Anna Nicole Smith's death and the custody battle to emerge from it; only that protection did not come at all from journalism ethics. What makes journalism such a special profession is the power of the First Amendment; and add to that the bribery laws applying to public servants. And, though the line between tabloid and news is thin, the news side of the events in this case seemed to offer access evenly. Some hearings in the case were on television in their entirety. It is significant that the judge and prosecutors and police involved in all aspects of the Annna Nicole Smith case were not among those accused of demanding money for access. There was enough free access that some cable channels became 24-hour Anna Nicole Smith discussions.
Another protection comes from the sort of story in which compensated interviews become an issue. They will be few and far between. In fact, in most cases, the biggest protection of all comes from the reality that most stories aren't worth a thing. Part of what makes Jerry Lewis asking $20,000 bizarre is how much money it is compared to how little interest there is in Lewis. Anyone, know how to reach Don Rickles? An interview with Britney Spears right now can command a fortune, and K-fed can get good money, too, if a lot less. Who knows if either will try to collect, but is that a tragedy for journalism? It certainly isn't good. But very few are in a position to demand money, and most would see doing so as shooting themselves in the foot. It makes total sense that I have never been asked to pay for an interview but I have been offered bribes. Protection may come from the First Amendment, but the power of the media is that it brings an audience that wants news. People connected to the significant events of the day will continue to speak to the New York Times primarily because they have something to say and/or do not want their voices left out of stories. Even most celebrity news will continue to be free as celebrities, more than most, require the exposure provided by media.
But, in the end, one day between yesterday and tomorrow, some celebrities will begin to demand and get cash for interviews. There is a certain inevitability about it. Interestingly, the perfect analogy here is the Vegas nightclub scene. At one time, appearance fees were unheard of in the industry. Clubs tried to be hot just by luring inside and then comping celebrities. Yet, now Vegas clubs pay a fortune to some celebrities in appearance fees. Pure admits to having paid Britney Spears six figures for her New Year's Eve appearance. But even in nightclubs, overwhelmingly celebrities still go without compensation. There are very few celebrities worth paying to show up, and that will certainly be the case with compensated interviews. It strikes me that their future is the celebrity-in-distress beat. Certainly, this in a threat to the tradition of news. But I think that people like me will continue to be fine only speaking with the willing for free.