Money matters: the ethics of paying for multimedia content Kimberley Brown and Anam Latif Standards of Journalists

Care - Fall 2013 School of Journalism, Ryerson University 20 January, 2014

Money Matters: The Ethics of Paying for Multimedia Content When the Toronto Star was offered a video purporting to show Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine, the asking price was $200,000. The Star chose not to make the purchase, but instead reported about the videos existence and content. Months later, the Star bought another video, this time showing the Mayor of Toronto in an inebriated, enraged rant. The price: $5,000. Kimberley Brown and Anam Latif examine the ethical issues, and process involved, in paying for content. In November 2013, the Toronto Star paid $5,000 for a video of Torontos Mayor, Rob Ford, in the middle of a drunken rant. This video was over a minute long and was solicited to the Toronto Star and one other competitive news outlet by a person who remained anonymous. The Toronto Star based its decision to purchase this video on the intense public scrutiny the mayor had been under for several months. Ford had recently admitted to smoking crack cocaine: an admission the public had been seeking since the Star and Gawker reported on a previous video of the mayor allegedly doing illegal drugs. Though the Star purchased the video of the mayor in a drunken rant, it did not purchase the crack cocaine video for several reasons, which are discussed in this paper. Although the Star routinely pays for content, it is uncommon for any news organization to publicly announce how much it paid for material. When the Star reported it had paid $5,000, it caused uproar and raised some eyebrows. The Star also received criticism for purchasing this video because of its turbulent relationship with the Toronto mayor. The Ford family, and its supporters, have come to recognize the Toronto Star as the paper determined to destroy the mayors reputation. Some would argue publishing this video wasnt newsworthy at all, but was just a way for the Star to publicly ridicule Ford. So is this an example of chequebook journalism or merely a more transparent approach to paying for content? While chequebook journalism is an age-old taboo in the newspaper industry, paying for content like photos and wire services is fairly common. Additionally, newspapers are now multimedia outlets and are stepping into practices that were once exclusively for broadcast stations. We explored historical examples of paying for content and chequebook journalism to reveal that although the jargon may have changed, the process remains the same. We spoke with the Stars editor-in-chief, Michael Cooke, about why the paper decided to pay for the video. We also examined the point of view of several columnists and journalists on the subject of paying for the Rob Ford drunken rant video. Where is the line between the two, and did the Toronto Star cross it?

The following case study examines the ethics of chequebook journalism and paying for content in the context of the Rob Ford video. Introduction: In early November, 2013, The Toronto Star was offered a video showing Torontos Mayor, Rob Ford, in an impaired rage. In the clip, Ford paces back and forth in an unknown room, swearing profusely and threatening to kill an unidentified individual, who is not present. The Mayor is clearly unaware that he is being filmed. The video is suspected to have been taken in August of 2013. The Star was told that it was shot in a supporters home, where Ford showed up impaired. The newspaper was also told that four people between the ages of 20 and 60 were present during this incident. One person recorded the rant using a cellphone camera. The vendor of this 77-second video is reported to have acquired it by filming it from a second individuals computer screen, and that person was connected to people who were in the room during Fords rant. The vendor, who has remained anonymous, requested $5,000 for the video. The money would be used for the legal and beneficial use of a family (Donovan et al.). The Star was not the only paper the anonymous vendor approached. The Toronto Sun, a competing daily newspaper, discussed the video with the vendor but didnt enter into negotiations (Warmington). It did, however write about the video and post two short clips received from the person selling it. The Suns editor-in-chief, Wendy Metcalfe, declined to speak with us about why the paper decided not to buy the video. This was not the first time the Star had been faced with a decision about buying a video showing Ford doing something damning. On May 16, 2013, first the U.S.-based news and gossip website Gawker, and then the Star, reported that a video existed showing the Mayor smoking from what appeared to be a crack-cocaine pipe. The Star had been working on this story for almost two months, and two of its reporters had seen the video. But Gawker broke the news first, after being approached by a group of Somali men involved in the drug trade, who were looking to sell the video of Ford doing illegal drugs (Donovan, Doolittle). Their asking price: $200,000. The Star refused to pay that much because, according to editor-in-chief Michael Cooke, that money had a very good chance of going towards drug dealers to purchase more drugs and guns and we didnt feel we could justify that. Gawker actually tried to pay the men for the video using a crowdsourcing campaign aptly named Crackstarter. The Figure 1 - Photograph given to Gawker and the website was successful in raising the Toronto Star providing 'bonafides' for the video

transaction. Left to right: Anthony Smith, Rob Ford, Monir Kassim and Mohammad Khattak. Source: Wikipedia

money, but the owner and the video disappeared. No media outlet was successful in obtaining it. Mayor Ford later admitted to smoking crack on November 5, 2013, but only after police confirmed the videos existence, and released documents linking Ford to clandestine package exchanges with an accused drug dealer (Dale). Chequebook journalism?

Figure 2 - Screenshot from CBCs The National: "Toronto Mayor Rob Ford admits he has smoked crack cocaine"

Would buying the video amount to paying sources for information, also known as chequebook journalism? That always-derogatory phrase most commonly involves paying sources for exclusive interviews, but money may simply be offered to induce sources to speak (Russell 39). News organizations usually differentiate this from paying for content such as videos or photos. But the public might not share that understanding. ILLUSTRATION - Chequebook Journalism: Policies at Various News Outlets

News organizations dont always clearly explain their policy about paying for content, and some dont publicly explain their guidelines at all. The Star, for example only says that it does not pay for information (Toronto Star Newsroom Policy): there is nothing posted about purchasing content. WATCH: Michael Cooke defines chequebook journalism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqpvPs1yrg&feature=youtu.be The fuzzy part, when it comes to things like videos and other types of visual journalism, is that there is and has been a standing practice of purchasing these items when they are of public interest, says Hugo Rodrigues, President of the Canadian Association of Journalists. He uses the example of a Canadian news channel that pays, either under a licensing fee or some other broadcast agreement, to show footage captured by another news station somewhere else in the world. Its not as clean cut of an answer because, well, we shouldnt pay for news. But we always have these sort of exceptions, especially when it comes to visual news (Rodrigues). Unlike broadcast media, newspapers have only recently been able to publish videos online. Television is a visual medium that relies on images to tell stories (Moos, 5 reasons broadcasters pay), but newspapers have traditionally been about text and photographs. So if a broadcast organization were given the opportunity to purchase the video, it may not have had to think twice about buying it. Newspapers, on the other hand, have been in the video business since only a few years ago, when the Internet crashed through the doors of our newsroom, said Cooke. But ethical questions over paying for pictures are by no means newand not always clear. Historical examples: One of the earliest examples of an established media outlet engaging in chequebook journalism happened in 1912 when a prominent and reputable newspaper paid a Titanic survivor $1,000 for an interview about his experiences. The newspaper was the New York Times. Jeremy W. Peters, a current reporter in that papers Washington bureau, wrote in 2011 that chequebook journalism has been a persistent and problematic feature of news coverage at even the most powerful and reputable news organizations, long predating the hyper-competitive 24-hour cable news cycle and the celebrity gossip boom. The language, however, has changed with time. What was once written off as a memoir fee in the print business is now a licensing fee at a broadcast station (Peters). Stripped of jargon, licensing fees are essentially payments made to freelancers, bystanders and sources for news information. In Canada, the Toronto Daily Star (now the Toronto Star) paid $1,000 for an exclusive 1966 interview with Gerda Munsinger, an alleged spy and party girl who was good friends with at least one cabinet minister. At the time of the interview, she was rumoured to be dead; but the Star found her safe in Munich (Russell 40).

The Toronto Sun paid $10,000 for wedding photographs of serial murderers Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka in 1993, while Bernardo was facing charges, according to Russell (40), who does not state whom the money went to. According to the Poynter Institutes Julie Moos, while there are legitimate licensing fees paid to freelancers for
Figure 3 One of the photos of Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo's wedding that the Toronto Sun paid $10,000 for. The Toronto Sun

photos and other material, using that label when paying sources is a false claim to journalistic integrity (5 reasons broadcasters pay). Licensing fees are a normal transaction in broadcast journalism, by which rights are purchased to publish photos and/or video. The material could be as innocent as citizen witness photos of a fatal plane crash or as suspicious as an exclusive interview with a celebrity. ABC was criticized for spending $200,000 on exclusive rights to videos and photos relating to the accused murderer Casey Anthony in 2008 (Tompkins). The accused had yet to stand trial for first-degree murder in 2010, which was when news of the payment surfaced. It came out during a court hearing regarding Anthonys financial needs for defence. The judge ordered that information of the deal be made public, and ABC was left explaining itself to wagging fingers all across the United States. This was not the first time in the past few years that ABC paid for information in the form of licensing fees to scoop a story, specifically from the clutches of its fierce competitor, NBC, who was also engaging in similar activities (Moos, ABC ends chequebook journalism). Kelly McBride, Poynters ethics group leader, told Poynters Al Tompkins that: [I]t sounds to me like a pretty lucrative photo licensing deal. I dont know how much [is typical] when they really have to license photos, but $200,000 is pretty expensive. [...] I question all of these over-the-top licensing arrangements because you are essentially paying for a source to talk to you and you are going around the rules that say you are not allowed to do that (Tompkins). ABC updated its policies in 2011 stating that the network would no longer pay for news. Jeffrey Schneider, Senior Vice President of the ABC News network, told Poynters Moos that ABC would no longer pay licensing fees to sources involved in stories. It was starting to distract from important work. Competition, filling air time and a need for compelling visual content are all reasons why broadcast stations may tend to lower their standards quicker than their print counterparts, wrote Moos (ABC ends chequebook journalism). Newspapers have always relied on wire service licences for wire stories and photos for international news. But newspapers are turning into multimedia newsrooms where the Internet can be scoured for news, videos and photos whether it is aggregated

through crowdsourcing, wire service licences, or, as in the case of the Ford videos, alternate sources. Dollars and credibility: The Star was assured that if it paid for the Ford-rant video, the money would go to the legal and beneficial use of a family, not drug dealers who might buy more drugs or guns (Donovan et al.). But, as far as we know, the Star does not know who received the money. Nor is it able to know exactly how the money was spent. The Star also has no idea what bias or motivation the owner(s) might have for selling the video. Editor Cooke said the video was of huge public interest both in Toronto and worldwide (Jones). But Matt Gurney, a columnist and editor at the National Post, disagreed. If the video had added something substantive to the story that we didnt already know, it would be one thing. But lets recap what the video tells us about Mayor Ford. He can behave erratically while intoxicated. We knew that already. That Ford is prone to bizarre public outbursts while under the influence of only God knows what substances isnt news. It wouldnt have been news years ago. Why pay $5,000 for proof of something thats already established? Oregon-based ethics professor Stephen J.A. Ward, on the other hand, thought the video was of high public value, not just interest, like, we just want to see this. I think this is a mayor of a major Canadian city, as you know, and its a big public issue as to what hes doing and whether hes acting erratically taking drugs [ ...].

Figure 4 - Screenshot from the five second long clips of the Rob Ford video rant obtained by the Toronto Sun

For some critics, it is the credibility of information that suffers when money is exchanged. If the Star agrees to pay for this video, whats to stop other people from demanding money for content? And, will all material be credible? Chequebook journalism encourages people to concoct, pursue or peddle information or allegations just to make a buck off gullible media outlets, writes Ross Howard, a journalism professor at Langara College, B.C. Ideally, citizens should turn to the media with evidence of corruption or officials incompetence because it is wrong, and in return the media should provide a reliable place to expose it (Howard). In this situation, the Toronto Star had already passed up the opportunity to purchase the video of Rob Ford smoking crack in May. While Cooke explains the May decision by referring to the possibility of the money being put to illegal use, the asking price was also much higher. The CAJs Rodrigues says that when a possible monetary transaction arises, two questions will be asked: 1) whether or not you pay, and 2) what is the fair amount? LISTEN: Stephen Ward: it was a matter of money: https://soundcloud.com/anamlatif/ward-money-vs-ethics In the end, after all, this was not only an ethical decision. It was a business deal. As Boynton puts it, regardless of the currency whether emotional, ideological, or financial journalism always involves a transaction of some kind (Boynton 13).

The Final decision: To pay or not to pay? The Star had to decide quickly, because the vendor was clearly shopping the video around and might approach another media outlet. There was also the fear that the video would be lost, much like the crack-video, if the Star didnt act immediately. Editor-in-chief Michael Cooke and Publisher John Cruickshank talked briefly about the $5,000 price tag and the public value of the video before making the final decision (Donovan et al.). They decided that proof of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford yelling Im gonna kill that f---ing guy. Im telling you, its first-degree murder, was a matter of public importance because, serious or not, a prominent public figure was making death threats. Publishing the video would prevent Mayor Ford from denying this incident, as he had done regarding the allegations about smoking crack. It would hold the mayor of Canadas largest city accountable for his disturbing actions. The Toronto Star decided to purchase the video of Rob Ford for $5,000 and published it as Rob Ford caught on video in violent rant. The transaction was made in Torontos very public Union Station. WATCH: Michael Cooke on why the Star decided to make the buy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1gNzZIuy68&feature=youtu.be The Star approached Rob Ford, his brother Doug, and their lawyers to seek comment on the video before publishing it. There was no response (Donovan et al.) and publication went ahead on November 17. WATCH: Rob Fords rant: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/11/07/mayor_rob_ford_caught_in_vid eo_rant.html Moments later, Rob Ford made a public apology for his behavior: The Toronto Star just released a video that I was very, very inebriated. All I can say is, again, Ive made mistakes. I just wanted to come out and tell you I saw a video. Its extremely embarrassing. The whole worlds going to see it. You know what? I dont have a problem with that (Donovan et al.). After publication, Kathy English, the papers public editor, clarified in a column what the Star would and would not pay for. The Toronto Star does not pay sources for interviews. That means no one scores cash for telling the Stars reporters what they know. The Star does, however, pay fees for photographs, videos, book excerpts and freelance stories. English did acknowledge that buying the video would spark debate about journalistic ethics and whether or not this was chequebook journalism. She was not comfortable exchanging money for the video, and she wished that, given the public interest, the owner(s) had provided it freely.

But Stephen Ward thinks that the one-time explanation did not go far enough toward explaining a news organizations policy on paying for content. LISTEN: Last word from Stephen Ward, calling for public guidelines: https://soundcloud.com/anamlatif/ward-policies

SIDEBAR: A private moment? Beyond the question of paying for any video of this kind, there is the question of whether publishing it would be a breach of privacy. Clearly, Rob Ford did not know he was being filmed when he launched into his killer-rant. And the moment took place in a private home. Does that mean it was a private matter? WATCH: Michael Cooke on privacy: no longer a realistic expectation for politicians. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn60ZE4lna8&feature=youtu.be Ottawa public relations professor, Karen Keskinen told Postmedia News Cullen Bird that a public figure should be held accountable and that using technology to do so shows the character of the man. Bird also writes, however, that historical public figures like Prime Minister John A. MacDonald would not have lasted in the public life if he was secretly filmed during one of his in-office drunken binges (Bird).

Bibliography Bird,Cullen. "Drunken Rob Ford Video Sparks Debate on Whether Private Recordings Are Good for Public life." PostMedia News, 10 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. Boynton, S. Robert. Chequebook Journalism Revisited. Columbia Journalism Review; Jan/Feb 2008; 46:5. pg. 12-14. Cook, John. The Rob Ford Crack Video Might Be Gone. Gawker 4 Jun. 2013. Web. 1 Dec. 2013. Cooke, Michael. Personal Interview. 4 Dec. 2013. Dale, Daniel. Rob Ford: Yes, I have smoked crack cocaine. Toronto Star 5 Nov. 2013. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. Donovan, Kevin and Robyn Doolittle. Rob Ford in crack cocaine video scandal. Toronto Star 16 May 2013. Web. 1 Dec. 2013. Donovan, Kevin, David Bruser, and Jesse McLean. Rob Ford caught on video in violent rant. Toronto Star 7 Nov. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. English, Kathy. No chequebook journalism at Toronto Star: Public Editor. Toronto Star 22 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. Ethics guidelines. The Canadian Association of Journalists. Jun. 2013. Web. 10 Dec 2013. Gurney, Matt. Matt Gurney: The Stars latest Rob Ford video wasnt news, it was voyeurism. National Post [Toronto] 8 Nov. 2013. Web. 1 Dec. 2013. Honderich, John. "Rob Ford Boycotts the Star, but Well Fight It and Heres Why." The Toronto Star. N.p., 1 Dec. 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. Howard, Ross. Should media pay for news?. J-Source.ca. 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 1 Dec 2013. Jobb, Dean. Media Law for Canadian Journalists. 2nd ed. Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications Ltd., 2012. 159-60. Print. Jones, Allison. Toronto Star on decision to pay $5K for Ford video. Canadian Press 7 Nov. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. Lakey, Jack. How low can Rob Ford go? There is no bottom. Toronto Star 11 Dec. 2013. Web. 12 Dec. 2013. Los Angeles Times Ethics Guidelines. Los Angeles Times 1 Feb. 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. Moos, Julie. 5 reasons broadcasters pay licensing fees for stories and why it corrupts journalism. Poynter. 13 Jun. 2011. Web. 2 Dec 2013. Moos, Julie. "ABC Ends Chequebook Journalism, Will No Longer Pay for Interviews."Poynter.org. N.p., 25 July 2011. Web. Meyer, Philip. Ethical Journalism: A Guide for Students, Practitioners, and Consumers. New York: Longman, 1987. Print. Newsroom Ethics Policy. Boston Globe 15 May 2008. Web. 7 Dec. 2013. OPC Decision: Donley Vs Toronto Star, October 2013. Ontario Press Council. 16 Oct. 2013. Web. 7 Dec 2013.

Peters, Jeremy. "Paying for News? It's Nothing New." The New York Times [New York City] 7 Aug. 2011: N.p.,Print. Rodrigues, Hugo. Telephone Interview. 6 Dec. 2013. Russell, Nick. Morals and the Media: Ethics in Canadian Journalism. Vancouver: UBC Press, 1994. Print. Smith, Russell. "The Case of Chequebook Journalism." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 23 May 2013: 1. Print. Tompkins, Al. "ABCs Payment to Casey Anthony Raises Questions about Ethics, Chequebook Journalism." Poynter.org. N.p., 18 Mar. 2010. Web. Toronto Star Newsroom Policy and Journalistic Standards Guide. Toronto Star 7 Dec. 2011. Web. 7 Dec. 2013. Ward, Stephen. Telephone Interview. 5 Dec. 2013. Warmington, Joe. I need f---in 10 minutes to make sure he's dead: New Rob Ford video surfaces. Toronto Sun 7 Nov 2013. Web. 1 Dec. 2013.