From: United States
About me: This says it all: כח אֵלִי אַתָּה וְאוֹדֶךָּ; אֱלֹהַי, אֲרוֹמְמֶךָּ
More..
Wednesday, July 13, 2011,
Pay for Praise
.
I've heard about it before, but pay for praise really does exist in journalism. I'm not talking about a politician granting interviews in exchange for a little extra coverage. Nope. Literally paying a reporting (more likely the publication) to write positively about the politician in exchange for political ad.
Monday I did a story about a multi-generational eyesore. The judge sentenced the owner to 45-days in jail and a $4,500. When she failed to appear in court he issued an arrest warrant. Simple enough story. Go to the problem property to show what horrible condition it was in. Interview the judge, climb up raiload tracks for a different shot. Back to the entrance to interview the judge. Again, routine stuff.
Just as the interview was about to end..."You know this is an election year? I'll be putting in two ads towards the end..."
Pay for praise! I literally felt dirty, and not just from being on the railroad tracks. This was a neutral story that reflected positively on the judge. Why did he think for a second that the coverage would make him look bad? Or were his ads brought up for another reason? In my columns I not just include arrest information. I've started to periodically report what judges do when a defendant is first brought before him. Which judges releases some arrested for crack cocaine on his own recognizance? It's something readers want to know (and as voters have a right to know), and others like the public to know that it's "not just the cops."
Still...all of this I'll give you money for ads in exchance for positive coverage and a reducation of bad coverage reasks to high heaven. But in fairness, I really don't have a choice. I don't do the editing, don't own the paper and am not in a position to change things.
Status update--gaining even more speed wi
I've heard about it before, but pay for praise really does exist in journalism. I'm not talking about a politician granting interviews in exchange for a little extra coverage. Nope. Literally paying a reporting (more likely the publication) to write positively about the politician in exchange for political ad.
Monday I did a story about a multi-generational eyesore. The judge sentenced the owner to 45-days in jail and a $4,500. When she failed to appear in court he issued an arrest warrant. Simple enough story. Go to the problem property to show what horrible condition it was in. Interview the judge, climb up raiload tracks for a different shot. Back to the entrance to interview the judge. Again, routine stuff.
Just as the interview was about to end..."You know this is an election year? I'll be putting in two ads towards the end..."
Pay for praise! I literally felt dirty, and not just from being on the railroad tracks. This was a neutral story that reflected positively on the judge. Why did he think for a second that the coverage would make him look bad? Or were his ads brought up for another reason? In my columns I not just include arrest information. I've started to periodically report what judges do when a defendant is first brought before him. Which judges releases some arrested for crack cocaine on his own recognizance? It's something readers want to know (and as voters have a right to know), and others like the public to know that it's "not just the cops."
Still...all of this I'll give you money for ads in exchance for positive coverage and a reducation of bad coverage reasks to high heaven. But in fairness, I really don't have a choice. I don't do the editing, don't own the paper and am not in a position to change things.
Status update--gaining even more speed wi
