The Media Interview

Ahh, such promise for freedom of the press during the 2008 Olympics in this headline from the Guardian:

Beijing promises open media environment for Olympics

Then we find out that it means this:

“BOCOG will apply a zero refusal policy for interview requests, which means that all requests for interviews will be replied to,” the China Daily quoted Liu Qi, president of the Beijing Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, as saying. [my emphasis]

If replying to all interview requests is the criterion, then every government, every corporation, every celebrity has a “zero refusal policy,” except when they’re mean and don’t return your calls…

For its part, the International Olympic Committee has made it clear they’re demanding freedom of the press (at least on the grounds of the games):

Athletes will be allowed to speak freely in on-site media interviews after their competitions, even on the grounds of Olympic venues, where the Olympic Charter bans political protests.

(from a Washington Post article about IOC President Jacques Rogge and freedom of speech, April 11, 2008)

We’ll find out soon how far that promise will carry.

Barbara Walters was on CBC’s The Hour recently to talk about her new book Audition, and host George Stroumboulopoulos asked her:

Stroumboulopoulos: Who would you like to be your last interview?

Walters: (long pause) Osama bin Laden… [banter] …I have said that I don’t want to get any more big “gets,” but if Osama bin Laden called, I’d pack.

Barbara Walters on one of the main reasons she stopped doing the TV newsmagazine 20/20 back in 2004:

…it seemed that every celebrity, every murderer…had a lawyer or a press agent all interviewing the interviewer to determine where they could get the most airings for their clients, what kind of questions would be asked, and how much promotion and advertising would be guaranteed. The interviewer had to audition to land the interview.

From her memoir Audition, p.561.

Since taking office in 2006 Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been known for almost complete control of media access to his government. The Hill is the latest to run a story about these practices:

When [national] reporters request interviews, the minister’s office passes on the request with its recommendations to the Prime Minister’s Office. Ministerial offices file information such as the length of time required for the interview, the topics to be discussed, the potential angle of the story, and proposed communications lines. Whether the PMO approves the interview may depend on any one of these factors, as well as the PMO’s level of trust in the minister to keep to script and conduct a successful interview. The Prime Minister’s Office is more likely to strike down controversial or long interview requests, for instance….

The Conservative media strategy is largely geared to local media, for which interviews do not require PMO approval. Local news comes first, and the strategy is derived in part from the last election campaign, when the Prime Minister focused on getting out his messages out through local, supper-hour newscasts on private stations. “The PMO is very clear. Anyone can do local media without PMO approval,” the insider said.

The Hill does not provide direct access to articles, so you’ll have to search their site for the rest of this piece, entitled “PMO clears media requests, some Cabinet ministers not allowed to talk”.

NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker on paying for media interviews.

From MediaBistro’s transcript of an interview with FT.com managing editor Chrystia Freeland in June 2007:

ZUCKER: Well look, I think the key thing is, anytime you do an interview with anybody is that you disclose what you’re doing.

FREELAND: So if you say ‘we paid a million dollars for this interview,’ that’s okay?

ZUCKER: Well I don’t know that it’s okay, but certainly, it certainly, uh, disclosure I think goes a long way toward, umm, it goes a long way toward making people understand, uh, what has transpired.
Now, that’s not to say that I think we should be paying for, uh, interviews per se. I think that if somebody has something to say, hopefully there’s a way to do it without any checkbook journalism. I think historically there have been many instances where there have been fees paid for services, videos, photographs, and people have gotten around this, including the most famous interviewers on American television.

FREELAND: So it’s not an entirely new phenomenon?

ZUCKER: I don’t think it’s an entirely new phenomenon, but obviously I believe disclosure is the most important thing.

And we thought the idea of airing an interview with OJ Simpson about hypothetical murder was bad. German TV network has just aired the first TV interview with a convicted cannibal. All we can hope for is extremely low ratings.

A lot of people, including me, have mentioned that People magazine paid $300,000 for the first print interview with Paris Hilton after she got out of jail. I did say that the Hiltons had withdrawn all request for money, but I wasn’t very clear that this included People magazine.

Here’s an exchange between Anderson Cooper and Jess Cagle, who did the interview for People, that sets the record straight - it also addresses the issue of whether money was paid, not for the interview itself, but for photos/videos:

COOPER: CNN did not pay for this interview or for use of any pictures.

And, Jess, I know there are rumors on the Internet that “People” magazine paid, for your interview, $300,000. Is that true?

CAGLE: No, it’s absolutely not.

I mean, we — we made it — we have been approaching them since the time she got in trouble. We wanted to talk to her when she got out of jail. I mean, it’s — it never even — we don’t pay for interviews. So, it was never brought up.

There was — a couple of weeks ago, there were some discussions that I wasn’t having, instead of doing our own photo shoot, we might buy photos through an agency, but that certainly never came to pass. We — there was absolutely no money that changed hands…

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: So, just — just to be clear, were there — did any money change hands? You know, because some news organization will pay for pictures that the family provides. Did the magazine — did “People” magazine pay for pictures, like, personal photographs?

CAGLE: No, no, not at all.

COOPER: OK. So, no money from “People” magazine, to your knowledge, went to the Hilton family or — or Paris Hilton — or Paris to secure this interview?

CAGLE: No, absolutely not.

COOPER: OK.

In Cindy Adams column in the New York Post today, she quotes Barbara Walters on why, when Paris Hilton’s people withdrew demands for payment for the heiress’s first post-jail interview, Walters turned down a free interview. After all, ABC had originally offered $100,000 for the “get”:

Look, I’ve done prison interviews before, but people like the Menendez Brothers were really important news stories. This wasn’t. And even though I’d already written my questions, when all that pay-for-play stuff happened, I suddenly felt this was not up to my standard. It . . . felt . . . sort of . . . tawdry. The whole thing somehow was beneath me. Besides, it was a no-win. If I did a tough piece and her tears started to flow, it would be, ‘Oh, there’s Barbara Walters making people cry again.’ Too soft, and I’d be criticized.

If the context and accuracy of this quote are right, it seems that Walters is standing on some shaky ground:

1. The importance of the story didn’t change between the time of the ABC offer and Hilton’s decision to not seek any payment.

2. The no-win problem also didn’t change in that time frame.

3. How is the haggling over different offers any less “tawdry” than making an offer of $100,000 for an interview with a famous-only-for-being-famous celebrity?

I can perfectly well understand Walters coming to realize that she had been party to a struggle to perpetuate and cash in on the Hilton phenomenon, and wanting no part of it any longer (I could applaud that), but it would require a very different explanation than the one she’s apparently giving here.

Busy day in the gossip mills as rumors flew about which American TV network would first get to interview Paris Hilton (and pay dearly for it) when she’s released from prison. Following a detailed story in the NY Times this morning about ABC losing out on it’s bid of $100,000, reportedly to NBC, the omnipresent, omniscient TMZ.com began a day-long series of exclusives: NBC had a producer and crew lined up and the interview was on, it was off, it never existed…. whew!

You know that someone is going to interview her - just doesn’t look like you’ll see it on the Today show.

Found this interesting observation about paying for media interviews. It’s from Don Hewitt, creator and producer of 60 Minutes, in his 2001 book Tell Me A Story:

The truth is that reputable newspapers and reputable news broadcasts pay for interviews all the time, not in cash but in something more valuable - newspaper space and airtime for an author to plug a book or a movie start to plug a movie or a politician to plug a pet cause. Who in his right mind sits down to be interviewed without getting something in return? And let’s face it, “getting something in return” is the equivalent of “getting paid.” And we all willingly go along with it, because if we don’t, 20/20 will, and if The New York Times won’t The Washington Post will. Is there something wrong with it? No! Just stop all this ‘holier than thou’ jazz that we don’t pay for interviews because everybody does, all the time.

- Chapter 13, p.229