ABC News - Guilty of Checkbook Journalism?

[impatientredhead]

I am all for the market dictating which businesses are successful etc...
And if the public wasn't willing to tune in to see the nitty gritty details and photos they would have no value etc......

but I do think there should be a requirement to disclose, just like when the news is reporting on someone that falls within their stock holdings they have to say that at the beginning of the report.

The Caylee photos, and anything like them should be run with a banner at the bottom that says ABC paid 200k to Casey Anthony to purchase these photos.

 

[TrY]

The Anthony family were "the get" for the media back when this case first happened. It's not surprising that ABC paid licensing fees for pictures. I think that's how mainstream media organizations get around any corporate rules on paying for interviews.

For a very interesting insider look at how this all works you should read Connie Chung's Harvard paper:

The Business of Getting “The Get”: Nailing an Exclusive Interview in Prime Time

 

[manatee]

Imagine how much money everyone involved with this case will get if they "WIN"? I think the "dream team" is gambling all bets are on the WIN...impossible odds but if they get an acquittal they will all have hit the jackpot :banghead: :banghead: and there is no law against that. just my :twocents:

 

[sleutherontheside]

I am all for the market dictating which businesses are successful etc...
And if the public wasn't willing to tune in to see the nitty gritty details and photos they would have no value etc......

but I do think there should be a requirement to disclose, just like when the news is reporting on someone that falls within their stock holdings they have to say that at the beginning of the report.

The Caylee photos, and anything like them should be run with a banner at the bottom that says ABC paid 200k to Casey Anthony to purchase these photos.

BBM
Better disclosure does seem to be needed in certain cases. The problem would be in actually putting that into practice. In the case of KC......while charged with murder.....she has not been convicted. So to single out people "like her" with a disclaimer would in essence be discriminating against her and could imply guilt in the eyes of the network.
KWIM?

 

[impatientredhead]

BBM
Better disclosure does seem to be needed in certain cases. The problem would be in actually putting that into practice. In the case of KC......while charged with murder.....she has not been convicted. So to single out people "like her" with a disclaimer would in essence be discriminating against her and could imply guilt in the eyes of the network.
KWIM?

I think they should have to do it with everyone.
Just as an example if they bought video of Lacey and paid money to a trust fund it should say that, if the money went to Scott it should say that. If the photos are were on myspace and were taken under a public domain thing it should say that.

Anytime they are paying it effects whether the data presented is being done so in an objective manner, and they should have to disclose who is playing for pay in the interview.

And if defendants feel that being paid for loved ones photos makes them look guilty if it is disclosed, they have the option not to do it.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I think they should have to do it with everyone.
Just as an example if they bought video of Lacey and paid money to a trust fund it should say that, if the money went to Scott it should say that. If the photos are were on myspace and were taken under a public domain thing it should say that.

Anytime they are paying it effects whether the data presented is being done so in an objective manner, and they should have to disclose who is playing for pay in the interview.

And if defendants feel that being paid for loved ones photos makes them look guilty if it is disclosed, they have the option not to do it.

You make a good point. So that I understand.....are you suggesting this be done in "any" story? Or just those involving crimes?

 

[impatientredhead]

You make a good point. So that I understand.....are you suggesting this be done in "any" story? Or just those involving crimes?

I would say in any story.
Once you are cutting a check objectivity is suspect.
They should have to state when they have paid someone to participate.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I would say in any story.
Once you are cutting a check objectivity is suspect.
They should have to state when they have paid someone to participate.

I see now. Well logistically I think it would be unlikely to actually "happen" as a banner on the screen but if there is a way to document stories, paid sources etc.....that is accessible....that is more doable.

Whether any network would agree is another topic entirely......but given recent outrage by all networks and more importantly, journalism and media organizations ,changes may loom on the horizon. What those changes may be, or when they will happen is the question.

 

[rotterdam]

I am all for the market dictating which businesses are successful etc...
And if the public wasn't willing to tune in to see the nitty gritty details and photos they would have no value etc......

but I do think there should be a requirement to disclose, just like when the news is reporting on someone that falls within their stock holdings they have to say that at the beginning of the report.

The Caylee photos, and anything like them should be run with a banner at the bottom that says ABC paid 200k to Casey Anthony to purchase these photos.

Plus ALSO to whom it was paid.

 

[Aedrys]

During that hearing I specifically looked for the gentleman from ABC who attends all of the court hearings with the Anthonys. He was right there. Wonder why he wasn't called before the judge and questioned? But, he does make Cindy smile.:dance:

Novice Seeker

I wonder if he's going to quietly disappear and not show up at future hearings? ABC is probably backing away from this as quickly and quietly as they can, at least you'd think so...

And yes they did buy the pictures before it was known Caylee was dead, but why wouldn't the fact that a defense attorney brokered this deal
not send up a big, honking red flag with ABC? Because they were more interested in getting the story than caring about who they were making deals with. Shame on you, ABC!

I notice no one has fought over this case as a news story except the local stations for a long time, so I am wondering why ABC is still going to every hearing...it's not like any other network wants to go near this with a ten foot pole...unless there's a binding agreement or contract with the A's that they can't get out of without more bad publicity or getting sued...

 

[rotterdam]

I wonder if he's going to quietly disappear and not show up at future hearings? ABC is probably backing away from this as quickly and quietly as they can, at least you'd think so...

And yes they did buy the pictures before it was known Caylee was dead, but why wouldn't the fact that a defense attorney brokered this deal
not send up a big, honking red flag with ABC? Because they were more interested in getting the story than caring about who they were making deals with. Shame on you, ABC!

I notice no one has fought over this case as a news story except the local stations for a long time, so I am wondering why ABC is still going to every hearing...it's not like any other network wants to go near this with a ten foot pole...unless there's a binding agreement or contract with the A's that they can't get out of without more bad publicity or getting sued...

The "binding agreement" (after the trial regardless of outcome)has a lot of credibility IMO. That would also explain the rather high initial purchase price for the images.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I wonder if he's going to quietly disappear and not show up at future hearings? ABC is probably backing away from this as quickly and quietly as they can, at least you'd think so...

And yes they did buy the pictures before it was known Caylee was dead, but why wouldn't the fact that a defense attorney brokered this deal
not send up a big, honking red flag with ABC? Because they were more interested in getting the story than caring about who they were making deals with. Shame on you, ABC!

I notice no one has fought over this case as a news story except the local stations for a long time, so I am wondering why ABC is still going to every hearing...it's not like any other network wants to go near this with a ten foot pole...unless there's a binding agreement or contract with the A's that they can't get out of without more bad publicity or getting sued...

BBM....
Nancy Grace has been hitting this story again hot and heavy after her hiatus from coverage.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Anthony Book Deal

Local 6 News confirmed that George and Cindy Anthony are planning to write a book, but a deal is not yet in place.

The book will not be a tell-all about the case involving their missing granddaughter, Local 6 News reported.

The book will focus on what families should do if their child is missing.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/18025611/detail.html

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- Eyewitness News uncovered new information about who's cashing in on the Casey Anthony case. Sources extremely close to the family told Eyewitness News that the Anthonys have signed a $2 million movie deal with the Lifetime Movie Network.


Sources close to the Anthonys told Eyewitness News a $2 million contract with the Lifetime Movie Network has been signed. Padilla also said Baez broke his promise to beef up security because of the protesters to ramp up the drama the night Casey was arrested at her parents' house. He showed up after her arrest and held a marathon news conference slamming investigators for the show.

Lifetime Network told Eyewitness News there is no such deal and Cindy and George Anthony's attorney said that they are not involved in any financial deals involving the case, but Baez's PR firm won't answer any questions.
http://www.wftv.com/news/17550330/detail.html

I believe there will be a book or movie made with or without the Anthony family. I do believe it will wait until the outcome of the trial. If any of the other Anthony family get arrested for anything Caylee murdered related, they too will be under the Son of Sam law. SO..we shall see, I'm sure of it!

No one in the Anthony family should attempt to write a book about what families should do if a child goes missing. They have not been truthful, they have been throwing innocent people out there as suspects, they have backtracked anything truthful said on July 15th, 2008..they became hostile and contrary and are very good at spinning tales. I truly hope they don't attempt to try and give guidance to others who have a missing loved one! :banghead:

JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[Macushla]

The Anthony family were "the get" for the media back when this case first happened. It's not surprising that ABC paid licensing fees for pictures. I think that's how mainstream media organizations get around any corporate rules on paying for interviews.

For a very interesting insider look at how this all works you should read Connie Chung's Harvard paper:

The Business of Getting “The Get”: Nailing an Exclusive Interview in Prime Time

thank you so much for this link - it was a long paper but well worth reading, considering the title of this thread! What was surprising to me is that this was written back in 1998! things have only gotten worse since then.

 

[Aedrys]

BBM....
Nancy Grace has been hitting this story again hot and heavy after her hiatus from coverage.

I actually meant a network consistently covering or being involved in some way with this case. Nancy Grace ain't no network, and she ONLY gets involved if it gets her ratings for that night. I don't consider her competition for a network like ABC. It'd be a truly sad state of ABC's affairs if they're competing with Nancy Grace for anything, IMO.

Now come trial time, the networks may try to get back into this story, and that's where ABC will have an edge, but seriously, as much as everyone hates her parents and dislikes Casey, the only way someone could make money off of this is to focus on Caylee - hence Caylee being the one bringing in blood money. It's sick and disgusting.

I think ABC should get out while they can, or they are only going to get more bad publicity on this. I'm betting their lawyers are looking for any loophole they can so that ABC can get out of their contract with the A's (ITA that they have one with the A's and not Baez or Casey).

 

[NSS]

Just for the record, when ABC bought the pictures, video's etc, KC was not charged with murder yet.
I also wonder if other broadcasting entities could have paid ABC for the use of some of the now ABC owned material.
I do agree that the deal makes your stomach turn. And I do find the characters offering the stuff for sale to ABC ( and probably other stations, trying to secure top dollar), much more disgusting than ABC.

BBM.....and there lies the very crux of this matter.

Caylees mother and grandparents SOLD her photo's whilst she was a 'missing child'. As a parent I'd have provided the images for free since they may help me find my child/grandchild.

There were 2 parties to all negotiations, the one with the $$'s is a business entity, the other party was supposed to be looking for their missing baby.

I had stepped away from commenting on this case, but this issue has ignited a fire in my soul...... Poor, poor baby.

 

[Aedrys]

I believe there will be a book or movie made with or without the Anthony family. I do believe it will wait until the outcome of the trial. If any of the other Anthony family get arrested for anything Caylee murdered related, they too will be under the Son of Sam law. SO..we shall see, I'm sure of it!

No one in the Anthony family should attempt to write a book about what families should do if a child goes missing. They have not been truthful, they have been throwing innocent people out there as suspects, they have backtracked anything truthful said on July 15th, 2008..they became hostile and contrary and are very good at spinning tales. I truly hope they don't attempt to try and give guidance to others who have a missing loved one! :banghead:

JMHO

Justice for Caylee

Yeah because the only people to take their kind of guidance are people like the Croslins...seriously, it will tank so hard their foreclosure will look like a gift...

 

[cecybeans]

BBM....
Nancy Grace has been hitting this story again hot and heavy after her hiatus from coverage.

Since CNN and ABC seem to have some sort of reciprocal agreement (KB and other ABC-affiliate persons often appear on her show) and they also were allowed to use what appears to be some of the licensed video and pictures -specifically the "You Are My Sunshine" clip - I'm thinking that they are being encouraged to maximize their investment - perhaps so ABC does not appear to be alone in their effort to have invested in what is obviously being called "checkbook journalism".

 

[kushka]

On NPR today:
ABC News Under Fire For Payment To Murder Suspect
ABC News is facing sharp criticism over the disclosure that it paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to a Florida woman who now stands accused of killing her own daughter.

The $200,000 payment in August 2008 to Casey Anthony was used for exclusive rights to reproduce family photographs and videotape of her then-missing 2-year-old, Caylee........................

It goes on from there:
"I regard it as a totally unethical journalistic practice to pay people for access that way," former NBC News President Lawrence K. Grossman said.

"This is the worst example of what has become a common practice," former ABC News anchor Aaron Brown, the Walter Cronkite professor of journalism at Arizona State University, said by e-mail. "Even if you are OK with skirting the ethical edges some of the time by buying pictures from principals, this seems way over that line." etc.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124913007&ps=cprs

 

[BChand]

Since CNN and ABC seem to have some sort of reciprocal agreement (KB and other ABC-affiliate persons often appear on her show) and they also were allowed to use what appears to be some of the licensed video and pictures -specifically the "You Are My Sunshine" clip - I'm thinking that they are being encouraged to maximize their investment - perhaps so ABC does not appear to be alone in their effort to have invested in what is obviously being called "checkbook journalism".

I agree. Jim Lichtenstein, who is the Anthony's constant companion at every court hearing, is listed in the DatelineNBC "When Caylee Went Missing" episode.

http://www.film.com/celebrities/jim-lichtenstein/20274679

IMO he is protecting his investment by staying close to them. There has to be something for them in the future.