The Greatest Story Ever Sold?

In recent years, Iran and its relations with the West has captivated governments, citizens, and the media worldwide since, in an era of US-lead overseas military ventures, the world asked: where does the US want to pick its next fight?

Iran's uranium enrichment efforts, which the US and British governments fear signifies the initial stage of a nuclear weapons program, has been the main draw. The US alleges that Iran sponsors international terrorism, notably assisting insurgents in Iraq and Hamas in Lebanon, and regards with fear the non-acknowledgment of the State of Israel expressed in alleged comments made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Less publicly, the US has strategic reasons for fearing an Iranian nuclear power, which would alter the balance of power in the Middle East, potentially encourage other neighboring countries to develop nuclear capabilities, and further weaken US power in the region. Such fears culminated on 31st July 2006 in a resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council demanding that Iran immediately suspend its nuclear activities. In spite of this, despite citing no evidence to support his claims, on 9th April 2007, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Iran now has the capabilities to produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale.

Against this backdrop, a tense diplomatic episode recently flared up between Britain and Iran over the capture by the latter on 23rd March of fifteen British sailors, who had been undertaking a routine inspection in the Persian Gulf. Until the sailors' eventual release on 5th April, events magnified fears of an escalation. Some reports in the media alleged that the sailors could face charges of espionage if Iran found that the sailors had been caught in Iranian (not Iraqi, as the UK Royal Navy claimed) waters and were smuggling cars into Iraq. The treatment of the sailors by Iran was also questioned, especially after video footage aired on Iranian television showing crewman Nathan Summers saying "I would like to apologize for entering your waters without any permission ... I deeply apologize", held by many Western observers to be a forced confession. However, the tension immediately relaxed upon the sailors' release, thirteen days later. Following the release, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "We bear you [Iran] no ill will”. The episode was over.

Or so most thought. Now, a fierce media debate has arisen. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) had decided to allow the sailors involved in the incident to sell their stories to the press, deciding that “exceptional circumstances” has permitted the Ministry to lift its usual ban on such payments. Seaman Faye Turney appeared on ITV1's high-profile Trevor MacDonald television program and also sold her story to the Murdoch-owned Sun newspaper for a six-figure (in British pounds) sum. Now, strategic concerns aside, a passionate debate has arisen over whether or not it is ethical for participants in such an episode to financially profit from their experiences. Opposition politicians questioned the MoD's decision, calling it undignified; Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague announced he would be bringing the issue to be questioned by the House of Commons. Meanwhile, Mike Aston, whose son was killed by a mob in Iraq in 2003, told the BBC “It beggars belief... [T]o actually go round and sell their story I think is tacky and sordid”. Admiral Sir Alan West, former head of the Royal Navy, said “I would have refused [to allow the stories to be sold to the media]”. Meanwhile, the MoD responded by saying “It is a fact that the media have been making direct contact with the families and offering them significant sums of money - this is not something that the Navy and the MoD have any control over”.

The issue is far from simple. Even the MoD, whose decision sparked the controversy, has now placed a temporary ban on all military personnel, including those involved in the Iran affair, selling their stories to the media until a review of the issue has been completed. So, what conclusions can be arrived at? Seeing as selling one's story to the press is common practice, under what conditions, if any, should such practice be prohibited? Once financial compensation becomes a motivating issue for bringing facts or experiences to the media, does this raise too big a danger of such messages being distorted by the financial incentive to deliver?

In a perfect world, human sources of information, whose sole interest would be in benefiting the public, would have no hurdles in freely passing their knowledge to the media. However, in practice, compensation is often in the public good. Sources might not care about the public benefit and might need an incentive to talk to the media. This would be especially true when hurdles, such as public or peer embarrassment, might otherwise seem too large to overcome. There may also be situations where releasing certain information might result in great financial cost, something which payment would compensate. Sources might also use financial rewards to benefit charity or other worthy causes related to the relevant story. In the case of the British sailors, some of the sailors have stated that any money gained from selling their story will go to a charity benefiting military personnel.

Any situation involving both media and money, however, needs careful scrutiny. Allowing compensation in all cases could create motivation for exaggerating, or even inventing, one's story to facilitate a greater payout. Being seen to be motivated by money, and not some 'higher' cause, to speak to the press might also tarnish the reputation of a group or organization to which the source belongs. Moreover, financial reward might incentivize a source to act antisocially, causing harm to one's family, peers, or organization. On the media's side, competition for sources through bidding wars might create unfair access to information that should be available to any press outlet. If such an outlet were to continually benefit from outpricing its competitors, such competitors might be forced to exit the market, resulting in a steady decline into monopoly, thus removing the original benefits of market-based media. Bidding wars might also facilitate other entities becoming involved by, for example, giving a large sum of money to a newspaper to pay for information beneficial to the paying entity.

Rather than attempting to eliminate financial payouts to sources of information, a virtually impossible task and one that is not necessarily desirable, the media industry watchdogs might consider a more comprehensive set of guidelines that outline certain situations where compensation would be inappropriate. For example, should somebody receive payment if they represent an organization in the story they are telling and to whom should the money go: the organization or the individual? The idea of a pricing cap could also be a viable idea, especially in ensuring that sources receive compensation for their efforts but that media outlets cannot engage in bidding wars to drive competitors from the market.

The MoD's 180-degree turns in the Iran affair indicate that right now, at least in Britain, such rules have not been fully agreed upon. However, with enough potential pitfalls for financial compensation to interfere with fairness and accuracy, the issue must receive regulatory attention as soon as possible.

-----------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/world/middleeast/23cnd-basra.html?ex=1332302400&en=3e01dccd64a98831&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19353&Cr=iran&Cr1=
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6538957.stm?ls
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6537103.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6538921.stm