Did you see the interview with the octuplet mom on NBC's Today show? Did you ask yourself how NBC got the exclusive? I did.
But NBC isn't talking and the question doesn't seem to be getting much air or ink in the major media. It is, however, all the rage in the blogosphere. Check out this post, claiming the deal earned Nadya Suleman $300,000. Often, these kinds of arrangements are not direct payments but instead fees for using copyrighted family images, etc.
What do you think of that? Should a news organization pay for interviews? If so, why? If not, why not?
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Octuplets and Big Dough
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There's something that doesn't quite sit right with the idea of a news agency paying for interviews. I can't put my finger on it, but I think the reason goes back to who these interviews are with. The only people being paid by news organizations are the ones at the heart of soft, entertainment-based tripe. These stories are barely worth covering; celebrities and people in the fickle spotlight of fame don't deserve to have news attention to begin with. The fact that an organization would pay for such an interview to boost readership or audience for a day is downright depressing to an aspiring journalist.
As for this story, I can't say it isn't entirely newsworthy. As a college kid with a single psychology class under his belt, I can spot a dysfunctional and emotionally unstable woman when I see one. The recklessness and irresponsibility of this girl is astounding; I don't want to sound like a bad columnist or right-wing pundit, but this story deserves mention if only to alert social services to a developing disaster. As a bystander in the business of speculation, I'd say these poor kids will be lucky to make it out as semi-functioning adults.
Opinionated, yes, but did you watch that interview or read the article?
A news agency paying for interviews is like gossip magazines who pay for the first pictures of a celebrity's newborn. I think this situation makes the news seem unreliable and more for entertainment purposes. Even though this story was disposable to many people, it probably was profitable to NBC.
Suleman said she was married once. But the relationship ended when she realized "that I wasn't in love at all with him. I was in love with having children."
lol!
We must propagate the homeland!
In all seriousness, this woman is either dumb or insane, which makes her no different than most of the U.S. population, which makes her the opposite of notable.
As for the 'journalism' industry imposing an interview tax on itself: that is bad.
You can have your transparency just as soon as you buy me another house! hooray!
Post a Comment