Nom de plume
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 730
- Reaction score
- 24
I only started hearing the whole "They don't pay for interviews--They pay for pictures!" after the Casey Anthony case. Why couldn't the media just put bids for an interview and the highest one wins? I believe it was much different 10+ years ago. I'm sure the Ramseys got paid for interviews, but it was never brought up in the media. Nowadays, a child goes missing and someone always accuses the parents of trying to "get rich" from it. I believe that nowadays, they have to use the whole "picture excuse" but back in the 90s, the issue of parents making $$ from their child's case was not as prominent.
When networks are offering their most famous reporters to interview someone, for someone's first in-depth interview, you can bet yourself that a lot of money is being offered.
One little sentence in an article about their media blitz, and that's it. Nowadays, people would go crazy if they heard that the media was sending $$ or gifts to parents of missing/murdered children. And if the publishers were getting something from Tiffany--what do you think the R's were getting?
I honestly doubt that the media paid them for pictures. They paid them for an interview--period. It was not like today when a parent opens their mouth, and people already start speculating how much money they've made off the case. It was just not a controversial issue back then, for whatever reason. The media was not hiding behind any "We don't pay for interviews---We pay for pictures!" back then.
Either way, does it matter? If they were paid for an interview or paid for pictures, you can bet that there was some negotiating going on and that the Ramseys were paid a pretty penny.
IMO the R's main focus in life was always $, $$, and more $$$. JR didn't do anything just out of the goodness of his heart, or for free either. :twocents: