The most obvious argument for banning chequebook journalism is the unreliability of the witness. There is reason to believe that a witness who has been offered money, may be tempted to exaggerate their evidence to justify their fee or hold certain information to be used in publication later.
The unreliability of a witness can be the cause of a false prosecution.
As well as financial investment influencing witness testimony, there is question over whether certain stories are worth knowing about - are they in the public interest?
It is possible that entire court appearances could be avoided if false claims were not given in the first place.
A final reason for banning chequebook journalism is that the practice destroys journalistic credibility. By paying for a story the natural progression the interview and story can not take place, as the agenda could be pre-determined.
Chequebook journalism does have arguments for it it stay however.
It is perfectly legitimate for certain professionals; such as doctors, members of government to request payment for their specialized knowledge and time taken up.
Without these payments, credible and useful information could be lost to the public who could benefit from it.
Alex, good argument for banning chequebook journalism. Can you now find specific cases to support your evidence? This will enhance your argument with hard facts.
ReplyDeleteWhen has the payment for a story or information had a detrimental effect on the outcome?