Dear Sir,

Senator Georgia Marshall apologised for not noticing (like most viewers, I imagine) the disclaimer aired at the beginning of Gary Moreno’s interview of the People’s Movement spokesmen last month.

We have to admire her for doing that, but it’s a pity that the apology prevented her from highlighting a wider and more important issue.

The ethics of just about every news outlet in the western hemisphere are such that they would not accept money to broadcast what was incontrovertibly comment on a current news story, regardless of the disclaimer.

Doing that damages the appearance of independence not only of that particular outlet, but by inference, of every other news outlet.

If a broadcaster accepts money to run an interview, do they let the advertising party tell the journalist what questions to ask and what questions not to ask? Were the people who called in to ask questions or make comments screened? (They did seem to be predominantly on one side of the issue, didn’t they?)

Was the show really broadcast live, or was it taped beforehand so that the Movement could edit out parts of it they didn’t like before it was aired?

Questions like those are born of the lack of trust that such chequebook journalism brings about.

Would your newspaper, Mr Editor, or any newspaper you know of, assign a reporter to write a story for which the source has paid your parent company? Would any of your reporters agree to do the writing? I’m sure the answer to both questions would be a robust “no”.

I read that the practice of allowing stories to be paid for is common in India and China. Some people assume that means it is a question of cultural sensibility, but Indian news media are reportedly trying to clean up their act, and there is pressure on the Chinese to do the same. That suggests to me that the problem isn’t cultural, but ethical.

I for one am sorry that Georgia Marshall had to back off – she was on to something.

ANDRE