Can Reporters Pay Their Sources? Checkbook Journalism Explained

The First Amendment includes freedom of the press, which broadly means journalists, news outlets, and anyone who shares and publishes information (including podcasters, news influencers and independent newsletters) can do so without the government punishing them.

But what about when money is exchanged between a reporter and a source, known as “checkbook journalism”? Is it allowed under the First Amendment, or is it one of the areas (like defamation or libel) that are not protected by press freedom in the United States?

We answer those questions and more here.

What is checkbook journalism?

As the term implies, there is money involved with checkbook journalism.

Checkbook journalism simply means paying sources of news in exchange for information or the right to appear on the payer’s platform.

Some examples of checkbook journalism could include:

• Reporters paying a former employee of a major company for a scoop.
• Entertainment news outlets paying for information about where a movie star will be so they can get photos to publish.
• TV networks paying a survivor of a major disaster to come on their morning show for an exclusive interview.
• Podcast hosts paying a whistleblower who has written a book to promote it first on their show.
• A journalist who is writing a nonfiction book about religious upbringing paying people to include in the book their personal stories that illustrate the subject.

These are not the only times checkbook journalism might happen, but they do show various ways it might occur. And how this looks may vary newsroom to newsroom, as publications have different standards on this practice, with some prohibiting it and others allowing it.

Does checkbook journalism get press freedom protections under the First Amendment?

The 45 words of the First Amendment grant people the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. Overall, it is not incredibly detailed. The section on press freedom — “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press” — doesn’t specify everything journalists can and can’t do. Rather, the First Amendment means the government can’t prohibit people from engaging in certain activities or punish them afterward, with some exceptions.

For example, the government can’t broadly tell journalists and media workers how to interact with sources.

This means the First Amendment does not prohibit checkbook journalism or the general practice of paying sources for information, but the government may regulate this activity if it has some other justification for doing so.

When can the government regulate or punish newsgathering and published information?

The government can punish newsgathering if the journalist violates applicable public laws, such as trespassing. Similarly, it can punish published information if it falls into an unprotected category of speech, such as defamation.

If the government wants to pass a law regulating such speech, it must show a compelling interest for punishing the speech and make sure the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest — such as prohibiting the publication of the location and/or movement of troops during wartime.

Two major examples:

1. Forcing reporters to reveal the identity of confidential sources: If a reporter pays a source and also promises confidentiality to that source, the government could still force the reporter to testify as to the identity of that source and any information the source gave them, as well as the fact that the reporter paid that source for the information, unless a state law on reporter’s privilege
2. Making reporters responsible for the information they get from these sources: The First Amendment also does not completely protect journalists or anyone who publishes bad information. A journalist who paid a source for false information about a public official, and who knew the information was false but published it anyway, could be found liable for defamation because they published that information with actual malice. This might also fall into the unprotected category of fraud if the purpose was to intentionally mislead the public.

Put another way: Even though the practice of checkbook journalism is protected by the First Amendment, the promises made and the resulting publication might not be.

Pros and cons of paying sources for information

Few standards in journalism are black and white. One hard “no” across news standards is that it’s an ethical violation (and often a fireable offense) to steal someone else’s work and present it as your own (i.e., plagiarism).

Is the practice of checkbook journalism or paying sources for information similarly forbidden across the entire news industry?

The short answer is no.

Arguments in favor

Paying sources for information isn’t common among most major news outlets in the U.S., but it isn’t unheard of. Some tabloid outlets that focus on celebrity and entertainment news have used the practice for many years. In broadcast news, where ratings and scoops of big stories are common, TV networks sometimes use a form of it to obtain appearances of high-profile people or those with compelling stories of national interest. Though these networks would likely not call the practice “checkbook journalism” and instead say they are paying licensing fees to acquire exclusive rights to a story.

The practice is also more common in Britain and Australia, even for mainstream news outlets.

Arguments in favor of paying sources include:

• Offering fair compensation: People are giving their time to appear on a program or to give valuable information that could compromise their safety or future employment, so they deserve to be paid for their time or the risk they take. Journalist Nora Neus outlined this reasoning when she wrestled with paying sources for her book project.
• Treating these sources as freelancers: Many news outlets use additional people beyond their regular staff to help report. These include people who not only write, but take photos and record video, attend public events and collect election results, or help journalists in a foreign country get around and navigate local customs and physical spaces. There are different names for these people (freelancers, stringers, fixers, etc.), but they are all generally paid for what they provide. The argument behind some forms of checkbook journalism is the same: People contribute valuable information, content, or services to the news outlet, and those people should be paid.

Arguments against

In the U.S., most major news outlets have internal guidelines for how their staff should behave. These guidelines, called standards and practices, are based on ideas of ethics and how to approach situations like sources offering gifts to reporters.

As to paying sources, most major news outlets discourage or ban the practice for employees in their ethics handbooks, including The New York Times (staff “may not pay for interviews or unpublished documents”) and NPR (“nor do we pay for information from sources or newsmakers”).

Many news outlets base their decision-making on ethical guidelines from industry associations such as the Society of Professional Journalists. SPJ’s ethics code is used by many newsrooms as a guide to decision-making. Its code specifically warns against paying sources (“do not pay for access to news”). In a position paper further warning against the practice, SPJ’s ethics committee says:

“Checkbook journalism undermines journalistic independence and integrity and threatens the accuracy of the information that is purchased.”

Arguments against the practice include:

• Business relationship: Though much of the media is a for-profit business that requires income to operate, paying sources for information degrades the journalist’s role in being independent and asking tough questions of the source.
• Creating a market: If people know they can make money — perhaps even a living — by selling information to journalists, it could create a larger problem and a market for people to lie or stage events knowing they could sell their stories to news outlets willing to pay. This could incentivize news outlets into constant bidding wars where they compete with each other, and the highest bidder (and news outlets with more resources) will always win. Over time, this could force smaller outlets to close since they are unable to “compete” in this market.

Tips for identifying when sources have been paid

Knowing exactly when a news outlet has paid for information or exchanged money for someone to appear is difficult. The best hope is when this occurs, the news outlet involved will disclose it. That is not common.

For those looking to dig deeper into the practice, try this:

• Standards: Search whether the outlet has a standards-and-practices handbook, ethics policy or similar set of guidelines posted to its website. This might be found under the About section or linked at the bottom of the outlet’s homepage.
• Disclosure: Look for a disclosure statement about whether sources were paid, usually at the bottom (or sometimes top) of an article. Again, this is rare, but one standard part of journalism ethics is disclosing practices that could make people question credibility.
• Contact: When in doubt, just ask. Most news outlets should have some way to get in contact, either through email, phone, text or some kind of feedback form. Outlets that make it easier to get in contact — and to make the contact information of their staff readily available and easy to find — are generally more responsive.

If you want more background about the information you’re getting, including whether anyone received money as a source, consider reminding a news outlet about the final section of SPJ’s ethics code, which says journalists should:

• “Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.”
• “Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.”

But as SPJ says of its own ethics code: “It is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable.”

Scott A. Leadingham is a Freedom Forum staff writer. He previously worked as director of education for the Society of Professional Journalists. Email