What Is Catch and Kill Journalism?

The First Amendment protects the freedom of press, meaning the government cannot interfere with journalists’ work or punish them for what they report.

However, the First Amendment doesn’t shield journalists and news outlets in all cases. Libel, defamation and plagiarism, among other things, are not protected.

Even with free press protections, journalists could be prevented from reporting a story, though not by government officials legally stopping them or threatening them with jail. Another way some stories do not get reported is “catch and kill journalism.”

In this post we explain what catch and kill journalism is, why and how it’s been used, how it conflicts with ethical news standards, and why it’s allowed under the First Amendment.

What is catch and kill journalism?

As the name suggests, catch and kill journalism aims to stop something from being reported. The term “catch and kill journalism” describes the general act of obtaining information not for the purpose of reporting it publicly but to do the opposite: to stop it (or “kill” it) from getting out.

In practice, this could look like:

• The owner of a for-profit newspaper chain paying for a negative scoop about a politician he supports. Instead of publishing the information, the owner “kills” it by obtaining the exclusive legal rights to publish the story but never doing so.
• Giving money directly to someone for the purpose of keeping them quiet about information they have, with the understanding that they will not go to the news media with their information, aka paying “hush money.”
• A media company buying its competitors and merging or closing the outlets for the purpose of having more control over who can publish damaging stories about a business, person, or topic of interest to the media company owner.
• An influential person pressuring a news media company not to run a story with damaging information about that person, possibly by offering favors in return, threatening a lawsuit if it is published, or by leveraging their influence and connections.

These examples are not the only ways catch and kill journalism occurs, but they offer a general overview of the concept: trying to snuff out information that otherwise would become public, often by using money as a way of keeping the story hidden.

Examples of catch and kill journalism

By nature, catch and kill practices are hard to quantify and detail given they are supposed to be hidden. In general, tabloid media outlets that specialize in pursuing salacious rumors and celebrity coverage have a history of catch and kill practices.

American Media/A360media: The owner of the National Enquirer is known for multiple catch and kill instances, including one in 2005 to pay a woman $20,000 for her story about an alleged affair with Arnold Schwarzenegger, then a candidate for California governor. Ahead of the 2016 presidential election, the Enquirer’s publisher paid a former Playboy model for her story about an alleged affair with then-candidate Donald Trump. Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker also testified during Trump’s 2024 New York hush money trial that he connected Trump’s lawyer with Stormy Daniels for the purpose of burying and stopping the stories before the 2016 election. In all these examples, the information eventually came out through other means, despite the efforts to catch and kill the stories.

Harvey Weinstein/NBC: Ronan Farrow is one of several journalists credited with exposing sexual assault allegations against powerful Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. Before his explosive story was in The New Yorker, Farrow was working on it while reporting for NBC. Farrow said NBC killed the story, not because they bought the rights to the women’s stories, but because of outside pressure and “close ties” between Weinstein and NBC leadership. The story led to a much wider exposé about how the practice works, with Farrow writing a book titled “Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators.” HBO adapted the book into a six-part documentary series.

“Downton Abbey”: Though a fictional example from a popular TV show set in early 20th century Britain, this illustrates how catch and kill journalism is timeless. Lady Mary Crawley, eldest daughter of the Abbey’s titled family, is involved in a scandalous affair. Vera Bates, the dastardly wife of beloved household servant Mr. Bates, finds out and threatens to expose the story. Sir Richard Carlisle, who is Lady Mary’s fiancée and a rich and powerful newspaper owner, buys the rights to the story from Mrs. Bates, who later finds out she was duped, and Carlisle didn’t intend to publish it.

Is catch and kill journalism unethical?

The First Amendment gives wide leeway for journalists to report freely without the need for the government to approve what they report or to give them a license to do so.

Journalism industry associations set ethical standards that are voluntarily embraced by journalists and news outlets and help guide their practices.

RELATED: What is prior restraint?

Broad-based groups such as the Society of Professional Journalists and the Radio Television Digital News Association have ethics codes that encourage truth-telling, accountability, and transparency and discourage practices like paying sources for scoops, called “checkbook journalism.”

SPJ’s ethics code declares: “Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.”

RTDNA’s code begins: “Journalism’s obligation is to the public. Journalism places the public’s interests ahead of commercial, political and personal interests.”

Notably, under the First Amendment, these ethical standards cannot be legally enforced. Rather, ethics codes from these and other groups are ways journalists and news outlets can think about their approach to news in service of seeking and reporting the truth.

Whether the practice of catch and kill journalism violates these standards is for news outlets and the public they serve to consider.

Catch and kill journalism and the First Amendment

The First Amendment and its protections against government restrictions on reporting means news outlets can freely decide how and what to report.

Opting not to report a story is a freedom that media outlets and their owners and editorial leaders have under the First Amendment.

The practice of catch and kill journalism may violate ethics codes and norms practiced by many mainstream and standards-based news outlets, but it is not illegal.

This means that for people who don’t like such ways of operating, the onus falls on journalists and the public to catch the practice where it occurs and kill the incentives by not financially supporting the news outlets that employ it.

Scott A. Leadingham is a Freedom Forum staff writer. Email