[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 98 (Thursday, June 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8488-S8492]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      ``TAKE THE MONEY AND TALK''

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, without a doubt, the relationship between 
the media and politicians is a unique and interesting one. All would 
agree that press attention on politicians is a natural function of 
journalistic coverage of the legislative process. It is a necessary and 
useful role for the members of the press.
  Over the years, there has been a lot of media coverage focused on the 
effects of special interests on the legislative process. Reams have 
been written on how the wishes of the American people are compromised 
by the practice of legislators accepting gratuities from the pockets of 
highly paid lobbyists. Miles of video tape have been aired on programs 
critical of Members of Congress who cavort with special interest groups 
which have influence over matters under consideration by Congress. 
Often, by focusing their investigative light on elected officials, the 
media have brought instances of unethical behavior to the public's 
attention.
  Partly as a result of this attention, Members of Congress got the 
message. In an effort, which I led here some years ago, to eliminate 
possible conflicts of interest and perceptions of such conflicts, 
Members chose to prohibit the acceptance of honoraria and to require 
public disclosure of gifts from outside groups. Now, because of 
reporting requirements, the American people are able to judge the 
effects that any undue influence lobbyists may have on their elected 
representatives.
  What is distressing to me is the lack of parity that exists in this 
area as far as the media are concerned. In the June 1995 edition of the 
American Journalism Review, Alicia C. Shepard, in an article entitled, 
``Take the Money and Talk,'' makes a compelling argument for members of 
the press to turn the light of honoraria disclosure on themselves. As 
the article points out, journalists who receive honoraria from the very 
groups they cover have become a matter of considerable concern. It 
seems that even many reporters feel uncomfortable with the large sums 
that their peers receive from speaking engagements.
  In this age of instant communication, no one can doubt the tremendous 
impact of the media. Their stories--either in print, through newspapers 
and magazines, or on the air waves, through network news and talk 
radio--control the very way the public receives the news each day and 
perceives the issues and the players in the coverage. Reporters have 
the ability to [[Page S8489]] frame a story through virtually any 
filter they choose. Theirs is a powerful tool that cannot be taken 
lightly.
  At a time when public cynicism with both politicians and the media 
seems to have reached new proportions, the journalism profession ought 
to put the brakes on and reflect on how it is tainted by the policy of 
accepting speaking fees. How is one to know if a given journalist has a 
private agenda or an ax to grind? Right now, the public is not assured 
of balanced reporting and can only hope that members of the press are 
above ethical compromise. Although some media outlets are beginning to 
put restrictions into place, no rules of disclosure with respect to 
outside income are required by the journalism profession. There is no 
place to go to find out if a reporter has been compromised.
  Somewhat arrogantly or perhaps naively, many reporters have adopted 
the ``trust me'' theory of reporting, insisting that their ethical 
standards are not to be questioned. For some unclear reason, they 
assume that they are different from the individuals about whom they 
write. Simply by virtue of their name and employer, we are to believe 
that they are above reproach.
  The hypocrisy of this line of thinking is not only absurd, but it is 
also truly disturbing. To have a virtual field day in castigating 
politicians for allowing special interest groups access and influence, 
and then to turn around and ignore the same criticism in regard to 
themselves, in my mind, portrays a press corps that is unaccountable 
and, as a result, compromised or at least highly suspect. In an age of 
instant communications, the media hold an unequaled sway over the 
distribution of information to the public. Their access to, and 
influence on, the American people are unparalleled. The communications 
industry thus has an important obligation to guarantee the highest 
ethical standards among its members. As the press are fond of pointing 
out, in the public arena there are no free rides. It is past time for 
journalists to accept the same responsibility in this regard and 
acknowledge the dangers, within their own ranks, of receiving money 
from special interest groups.
  One of the liberties our Constitution speaks of is freedom of the 
press. Certainly, no one wants to see controls put on the media that 
would jeopardize the ability to report objectively. But, we are all 
better served when possible perceptions of misconduct are removed. 
Unfortunately, by refusing to address what is perceived at the very 
least as a double standard, the journalism profession runs the risk of 
losing further credibility with its audience. It is time for all 
thinking members of the media to face up to the same standards they so 
stridently require of others, and let the light of day reflect the 
objectivity of their work.
  Mr. President, in this regard, I ask unanimous consent that the 
article to which I have referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the American Journalism Review, June 1995]

                        Take the Money and Talk

                         (By Alicia C. Shepard)

       It's speech time at the Broward County Convention Center in 
     Fort Lauderdale.
       ABC News correspondent and NPR commentator Cokie Roberts 
     takes her brown handbag and notebook off of the ``reserved'' 
     table where she has been sitting, waiting to speak. She steps 
     up to the podium where she is gushingly introduced and 
     greeted with resounding applause.
       Framed by palm fronds, Roberts begins her speech to 1,600 
     South Florida businesswomen attending a Junior League-
     sponsored seminar. Having just flown in from Washington, 
     D.C., Roberts breaks the news of the hours-old arrest of a 
     suspect in the Oklahoma City bombing. She talks of 
     suffragette Susan B. Anthony, of how she misses the late 
     House Speaker Tip O'Neill, of the Republican takeover on 
     Capitol Hill. Then she gives her listeners the inside scoop 
     on the new members of Congress.
       ``They are very young,'' says Roberts, 52, ``I'm constantly 
     getting it wrong, assuming they are pages. They're darling. 
     They're wildly adept with a blow dryer and I resent them 
     because they call me ma'am.'' The audience laughs.
       After talking for an hour on ``Women and Politics,'' 
     Roberts answers questions for 20 minutes. One woman asks the 
     veteran correspondent, who has covered Washington since 1978, 
     when there will be a female president.
       ``I think we'll have a woman president when a woman is 
     elected vice president and we do in the guy,'' Roberts quips.
       This crowd loves her. When Roberts finishes, they stand 
     clapping for several minutes. Roberts poses for a few 
     pictures and is whisked out and driven to the Miami airport 
     for her first-class flight back to Washington.
       For her trouble and her time, the Junior League of Greater 
     Fort Lauderdale gave Roberts a check for $35,000. ``She's 
     high, very high,'' says the League's Linda Carter, who lined 
     up the keynote speakers. The two other keynote speakers 
     received around $10,000 each.
       The organization sponsored the seminar to raise money for 
     its community projects, using Roberts as a draw. But shelling 
     out $35,000 wouldn't have left much money for, say, the 
     League's foster care or women's substance abuse programs or 
     its efforts to increase organ donors for transplants.
       Instead, Robert's tab was covered by a corporate sponsor, 
     JM Family Enterprises. The $4.2 billion firm is an umbrella 
     company for the largest independent American distributor of 
     Toyotas. The second-largest privately held company in 
     Florida, it provides Toyotas to 164 dealerships in five 
     southeastern states and runs 20 other auto-related companies.
       But Roberts doesn't want to talk about the company that 
     paid her fee. She doesn't like to answer the kind of 
     questions she asks politicians. She won't discuss what she's 
     paid, whom she speaks to, why she does it or how it might 
     affect journalism's credibility when she receives more money 
     in an hour-and-a-half from a large corporation than many 
     journalists earn in a year.
       ``She feels strongly that it's not something that in any 
     way, shape or form should be discussed in public,'' ABC 
     spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said in response to AJR's request 
     for an interview with Roberts.
       Roberts' ABC colleague Jeff Greenfield, who also speaks for 
     money, doesn't think it's a good idea to duck the issue. ``I 
     think we ought not not talk about it,'' he says. ``I mean 
     that's Cokie's right, obviously,'' he adds, but ``if we want 
     people to answer our questions, then up to a reasonable 
     point, we should answer their questions.''
       The phenomenon of journalists giving speeches for 
     staggering sums of money continues to dog the profession. 
     Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau Chief James Warren has 
     created a cottage industry criticizing colleagues who speak 
     for fat fees. Washington Post columnist James K. Glassman 
     believes the practice is the ``next great American scandal.'' 
     Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley has denounced it on the 
     Senate floor.
       A number of news organizations have drafted new policies to 
     regulate the practice since debate over the issue flared a 
     year ago (see ``Talk is Expensive,'' May 1994). Time magazine 
     is one of the latest to do so, issuing a flat-out ban on 
     honoraria in April. The Society for Professional Journalists, 
     in the process of revising its ethics code, is wrestling with 
     the divisive issue.
       The eye-popping sums star journalists receive for their 
     speeches, and the possibility that they may be influenced by 
     them, have drawn heightened attention to the practice, which 
     is largely the province of a relatively small roster of well-
     paid members of the media elite. Most work for the television 
     networks or the national news weeklies; newspaper reporters, 
     with less public visibility, aren't asked as often.
       While the crescendo of criticism has resulted in an 
     official crackdown at several news organizations--as well as 
     talk of new hardline policies at others--it's not clear how 
     effective the new policies are, since no public disclosure 
     system is in place.
       Some well-known journalists, columnist and ``Crossfire'' 
     host Michael Kinsley and U.S. News & World Report's Steven V. 
     Roberts among them, scoff at the criticism. They assert that 
     it's their right as private citizens to offer their services 
     for whatever the market will bear, that new policies won't 
     improve credibility and that the outcry has been blown out of 
     proportion.
       But the spectacle of journalists taking big bucks for 
     speeches has emerged as one of the high-profile ethical 
     issues in journalism today.
       ``Clearly some nerve has been touched,'' Warren says. ``A 
     nerve of pure, utter defensiveness on the part of a 
     journalist trying to rationalize taking [honoraria] for the 
     sake of their bank account because the money is so 
     alluring.''
       A common route to boarding the lecture gravy train is the 
     political talk show. National television exposure raises a 
     journalist's profile dramatically, enhancing the likelihood 
     of receiving lucrative speaking offers.
       The problem is that modulated, objective analysis is not 
     likely to make you a favorite on ``The Capital Gang'' or 
     ``The McLaughlin Group.'' Instead, reporters who strive for 
     objectivity in their day jobs are often far more opinionated 
     in the TV slugfests.
       Time Managing Editor James R. Gaines, who issued his 
     magazine's recent ban on accepting honoraria, sees this as 
     another problem for journalists' credibility, one he plans to 
     address in a future policy shift. ``These journalists say 
     things we wouldn't let them say in the magazine. . .,'' says 
     Gaines, whose columnist Margaret Carlson appears frequently 
     on ``The Capital Gang.'' ``It's great promotion for the 
     magazine and the magazine's journalists. But I wonder about 
     it when the journalists get into that adversarial atmosphere 
     where provocation is the main currency.'' [[Page S8490]] 
       Journalists have been ``buckraking'' for years, speaking to 
     trade associations, corporations, charities, academic 
     institutions and social groups. But what's changed is the 
     amount they're paid. In the mid-1970s, the fees peaked at 
     $10,000 to $15,000, say agents for speakers bureaus. Today, 
     ABC's Sam Donaldson can get $30,000, ABC's David Brinkley 
     pulls in $18,000 and the New York Times' William Safire can 
     command up to $20,000.
       When a $4.2 billion Toyota distributor pays $35,000 for 
     someone like Cokie Roberts, or a trade association pays a 
     high-profile journalist $10,000 or $20,000 for an hour's 
     work, it inevitably raises questions and forces news 
     executives to re-examine their policies.
       That's what happened last June at ABC. Richard Wald, senior 
     vice president of news,
      decided to ban paid speeches to trade associations and for-
     profit corporationsmuch to the dismay of some of ABC's 
     best-paid correspondents. As at most news organizations, 
     speaking to colleges and nonprofits is allowed.
       When Wald's policy was circulated to 109 employees at ABC, 
     some correspondents howled (see Free Press, September 1994). 
     Protests last August from Roberts, Donaldson, Brinkley, 
     Greenfield, Brit Hume and others succeeded only in delaying 
     implementation of the new guidelines. Wald agreed to 
     ``grandfather in'' speeches already scheduled through mid-
     January. After that, if a correspondent speaks to a forbidden 
     group, the money must go to charity.
       ``Why did we amend it? Fees for speeches are getting to be 
     very large,'' Wald says. ``When we report on matters of 
     national interest, we do not want it to appear that folks who 
     have received a fee are in any way beholden to anybody other 
     than our viewers. Even though I do not believe anybody was 
     ever swayed by a speech fee, I do believe that it gives the 
     wrong impression. We deal in impressions.''
       The new policy has hurt, says ABC White House correspondent 
     Ann Compton. Almost a year in advance, Compton agreed to 
     speak to the American Cotton Council. But this spring, when 
     she spoke to the trade group, she had to turn an honorarium 
     of ``several thousand dollars'' over to charity. Since the 
     policy went into effect, Compton has turned down six 
     engagements that she previously would have accepted.
       ``The restrictions now have become so tight, it's closed 
     off some groups and industries that I don't feel I have a 
     conflict with,'' says Compton, who's been covering the White 
     House off and on since 1974. ``It's closed off, frankly, the 
     category of organizations that pay the kind of fees I get.'' 
     She declines to say what those fees are.
       And it has affected her bank account. ``I've got four kids 
     * * *,'' Compton says. ``It's cut off a significant portion 
     of income for me.''
       Some speakers bureaus say ABC's new policy and criticism of 
     the practice have had an impact.
       ``It has affected us, definitely,'' says Lori Fish of 
     Keppler Associates in Arlington, Virginia, which represents 
     about two dozen journalists. ``More journalists are conscious 
     of the fact that they have to be very particular about which 
     groups they accept honoraria from. On our roster there's been 
     a decrease of some journalists accepting engagements of that 
     sort. It's mainly because of media criticism.''
       Other bureaus, such as the National Speakers Forum and the 
     William Morris Agency, say they haven't noticed a difference. 
     ``I can't say that the criticism has affected us,'' says Lynn 
     Choquette, a partner at the speakers forum.
       Compton, Donaldson and Greenfield still disagree with 
     Wald's policy but, as they say, he's the boss.
       ``I believe since all of us signed our contracts with the 
     expectation that the former ABC policy would prevail and took 
     that into account when we agreed to sign our contracts for X 
     amount,'' Donaldson says, ``it was not fair to change the 
     policy midstream.'' Donaldson says he has had to turn down 
     two speech offers.
       Greenfield believes the restrictions are unnecessary.
       ``When I go to speak to a group, the idea that it's like 
     renting a politician to get his ear is not correct,'' he 
     says. ``We are being asked to provide a mix of entertainment 
     and information and keep audiences in their seats at whatever 
     convention so they don't go home and say, `Jesus, what a 
     boring two-day whatever that was.'''
       Most agree it's the size of the honoraria that is fueling 
     debate over the issue. ``If you took a decimal point or two 
     away, nobody would care,'' Greenfield says. ``A lot of us are 
     now offered what seems to many people a lot of money. They 
     are
      entertainment-size sums rather than journalistic sizes.''
       And Wald has decided ``entertainment-size sums'' look bad 
     for the network, which has at least a dozen correspondents 
     listed with speakers bureaus. It's not the speeches 
     themselves that trouble Wald. ``You can speak to the American 
     Society of Travel Agents or the Electrical Council,'' he 
     says, ``as long as you don't take money from them.''
       But are ABC officials enforcing the new policy? ``My 
     suspicion is they're not, that they are chickenshit and Cokie 
     Roberts will do whatever the hell she wants to do and they 
     don't have the balls to do anything,'' says the Chicago 
     Tribune's Warren, whose newspaper allows its staff to make 
     paid speeches only to educational institutions.
       There's obviously some elasticity in ABC's policy. In 
     April, Greenfield, who covers media and politics, pocketed 
     $12,000 from the National Association and interviewing media 
     giants Rupert Murdoch and Barry Diller for the group. Wald 
     says that was acceptable.
       He also says it was fine for Roberts to speak to the Junior 
     League-sponsored business conference in Fort Lauderdale, even 
     though the for-profit JM Family Enterprises paid her fee.
       ``As long as the speech was arranged by a reasonable group 
     and it carried with it no tinct from anybody, it's okay,'' 
     says Wald. ``I don't care where they [the Junior League] get 
     their money.''
       Even with its loopholes, ABC has the strictest restrictions 
     among the networks. NBC, CBS and CNN allow correspondents to 
     speak for dollars on a case-by-case basis and require them to 
     check with a supervisor first. Last fall, Andrew Lack, 
     president of NBC News, said he planned to come up with a new 
     policy. NBC spokesperson Lynn Gardner says Lack has drafted 
     the guidelines and will issue them this summer. ``The bottom 
     line is that Andrew Lack is generally not in favor of getting 
     high speaking fee,'' she says.
       New Yorker Executive Editor Hendrik Hertzberg also said 
     last fall that his magazine would review its policy, under 
     which writers are supposed to consult with their editors in 
     ``questionable cases.'' The review is still in progress. 
     Hertzberg says it's likely the magazine will have a new 
     policy by the end of the year.
       There's something aesthetically offensive to my idea of 
     journalism for American journalists to be paid $5,000, 
     $10,000 or $20,000 for some canned remarks simply because of 
     his or her celebrity value,'' Hertzberg says.
       Rewriting a policy merely to make public the outside income 
     of media personalities guarantees resistance, if not outright 
     hostility. Just ask John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal's 
     Washington bureau. This year, Harwood was a candidate for a 
     slot on the committee that issues congressional press passes 
     to daily print journalists.
       His platform included a promise to have daily 
     correspondents list outside sources of income--not amounts--
     on their applications for press credentials. Harwood's goal 
     was fuller disclosure of outside income, including speaking 
     fees.
       ``I'm not trying to argue in all cases it's wrong,'' says 
     Harwood. ``But we make a big to-do about campaign money and 
     benefits lawmakers get from special interests and I'm struck 
     by how many people in our profession also get money from 
     players in the political process.''
       Harwood believes it's hypocritical that journalists used to 
     go after members of Congress for taking speech fees when 
     journalists do the same thing. (Members of Congress are no 
     longer permitted to accept honoraria.)
       ``By disclosing the people who pay us,'' says Harwood, ``we 
     let other people who may have a beef with us draw their own 
     conclusions. I don't see why reporters should be afraid of 
     that.''
       But apparently they are. Harwood lost the election.
       ``I'm quite certain that's why John lost,'' says Alan J. 
     Murray, the Journal's Washington bureau chief, who made many 
     phone calls on his reporter's behalf. ``There's clearly a lot 
     of resistance,'' adds Murray, whose newspaper forbids 
     speaking to for-profit companies, political action committees 
     and anyone who lobbies Congress. ``Everybody likes John. But 
     I couldn't believe how many people said--even people who I 
     suspect have very little if any speaking incomes--that it's 
     just nobody's business. I just don't buy that.''
       His sentiment is shared in the Periodical Press Gallery on 
     Capitol Hill, where magazine reporters applying for press 
     credentials must list sources of outside income. But in the 
     Radio-Television Correspondents Gallery, where the bigname 
     network reporters go for press credentials, the issue of 
     disclosing outside income has never come up, says Kenan 
     Block, a ``MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour'' producer.
       ``I've never heard anyone mention it here and I've been 
     here going on 11 years,'' says Block, who is also chairman of 
     the Radio-Television Correspondents Executive Committee. ``I 
     basically feel it's not our place to police the credentialed 
     reporters. If you're speaking on the college circuit or to 
     groups not terribly political in nature, I think, if 
     anything, people are impressed and a bit envious. It's like, 
     `More power to them.'''
       But the issue of journalists' honoraria has been mentioned 
     at Block's program.
       Al Vecchione, president of McNeil/Lehrer Productions, says 
     he was ``embarrassed'' by AJR's story last year and 
     immediately wrote a new policy. The story reported that 
     Robert MacNeil accepted honoraria, although he often spoke 
     for free; partner Jim Lehrer said he had taken fees in the 
     past but had stopped after his children got out of college.
       ``We changed [our policy] because in reading the various 
     stories and examining our navel, we decided it was not 
     proper,'' Vecchione says. ``While others may do it, we don't 
     think it's proper. Whether in reality it's a violation or 
     not, the perception is there and the perception of it is bad 
     enough.''
       MacNeil/Lehrer's new policy is not as restrictive as ABC's, 
     however. It says correspondents ``should avoid accepting 
     money from individuals, companies, trade associations or 
     organizations that lobby the government or otherwise try to 
     influence issues the NewsHour or other special * * * programs 
     may cover.''
       As is the case with many of the new, stricter policies, 
     each request to speak is reviewed [[Page S8491]] on a case-
     by-case basis. That's the policy at many newspapers and at 
     U.S. News.
       Newsweek tightened its policy last June. Instead of simply 
     checking with an editor, staffers now have to fill out a form 
     if they want to speak or write freelance articles and submit 
     it to Ann McDaniel, the magazine's chief of correspondents.
       ``The only reason we formalized the process is because we 
     thought this was becoming more popular than it was 10 years 
     ago,'' McDaniel says. ``We want to make sure [our staff 
     members] are not involved in accepting compensation from 
     people they are very close to. Not because we suspect they 
     can be bought or that there will be an improper behavior but 
     because we want to protect our credibility.''
       Time, on the other hand, looked at all the media criticism 
     and decided to simply end the practice. In an April 14 memo, 
     Managing Editor Gaines told his staff, ``The policy is that 
     you may not do it.''
       Gaines says the new policy was prompted by ``a bunch of 
     things that happened all at once.'' He adds that ``a lot of 
     people were doing cruise ships and appearances and have some 
     portion of their income from that, so their ox is gored.''
       The ban is not overwhelmingly popular with Time staffers. 
     Several, speaking on a not-for-attribution basis, argue that 
     it's too tough and say they hope to change Gaines' mind. He 
     says that won't happen, although he will amend the policy to 
     allow paid speeches before civic groups, universities and 
     groups that are ``clearly not commercial.''
       ``Academic seminars are fine,'' he says. ``If some college 
     wants to pay expenses and a $150 honorarium, I really don't 
     have a problem with that.''
       Steve Roberts, a senior writer with U.S. News & World 
     Report and Cokie Roberts' husband, is annoyed that some media 
     organizations are being swayed by negative publicity. He says 
     there's been far too much criticism of what he believes is 
     basically an innocuous practice. Roberts says journalists 
     have a right to earn as much as they can by speaking, as long 
     as they are careful about appearances and live by high 
     ethical standards.
       ``This whole issue has been terribly over-blown by a few 
     cranks,'' Roberts says. ``As long as journalists behave 
     honorably and use good sense and don't take money from people 
     they cover, I think it's totally legitimate. In fact, my own 
     news organization encourages it.''
       U.S. News not only encourages it, but its public relations 
     staff helps its writers get speaking engagements.
       Roberts says U.S. News has not been intimidated by the 
     ``cranks,'' who he believes are in part motivated by 
     jealousy. ``I think a few people have appointed themselves 
     the critics and watchdogs of our profession. I, for one, 
     resent it.''
       His chief nemesis is Jim Warren, who came to Washington a 
     year-and-a-half ago to take charge of the Chicago Tribune's 
     bureau. Warren, once the Tribune's media writer, writes a 
     Sunday column that's often peppered with news flashes about 
     which journalist is speaking where and for how much. The 
     column includes a ``Cokie Watch,'' named for Steve Roberts' 
     wife of 28 years, a women Warren has written reams about but 
     has never met.
       ``Jim Warren is a reprehensible individual who has attacked 
     me and my wife and other people to advance his own visibility 
     and his own reputation,'' Roberts asserts. ``He's on a 
     crusade to make his own reputation by tearing down others.''
       While Warren may work hard to boost his bureau's reputation 
     for Washington coverage, he is best known for his outspoken 
     criticism of fellow journalists. Some reporters cheer him on 
     and fax him tips for ``Cokie Watch.'' Others are highly 
     critical and ask who crowned Warren chief of the Washington 
     ethics police.
       Even Warren admits his relentless assault has turned him 
     into a caricature.
       ``I'm now in the Rolodex as iconoclast, badass Tribune 
     bureau chief who writes about Cokie Roberts all the time,'' 
     says Warren, who in fact doesn't. ``But I do get lots of 
     feedback from rank-and-file journalists saying. `Way to go. 
     You're dead right,' It obviously touches a nerve among 
     readers.''
       So Warren writes about Cokie and Steve Roberts getting 
     $45,000 from a Chicago bank for a speech and the traveling 
     team of television's ``The Capital Gang'' sharing $25,000 for 
     a show at Walt Disney World. He throws in parenthetically 
     that Capital Gang member Michael Kinsley ``should know 
     better.''
       Kinsley says he would have agreed a few years ago, but he's 
     changed his tune. He now believes there are no intrinsic 
     ethical problems with taking money for speaking. He does it, 
     he wrote in The New Republic in May, for the money, because 
     it's fun and it boosts his ego.
       ``Being paid more than you're worth is the American 
     dream,'' he wrote. ``I see a day when we'll all be paid more 
     than we're worth. Meanwhile, though, there's no requirement 
     for journalists, alone among humanity, to deny themselves the 
     occasional fortuious tastes of this bliss.''
       To Kinsley, new rules restricting a reporter's right to 
     lecture for largesse don't accomplish much.
       ``Such rules merely replace the appearance of corruption 
     with the appearance of propriety,'' he wrote. ``What keeps 
     journalists on the straight and narrow most of the time is 
     not a lot of rules about potential conflicts of interest, but 
     the basic reality of our business that a journalist's product 
     is out there for all to see and evaluate.''
       The problem, critics say, is that without knowing who 
     besides the employer is paying a journalist, the situation 
     isn't quite that clear-cut.
       Jonathan Salant, president of the Washington chapter of the 
     Society of Professional Journalists, cites approvingly a 
     remark by former Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee 
     in AJR's March issue: ``If the Insurance Institute of 
     America, if there is such a thing, pays you $10,000 to make a 
     speech, don't tell me you haven't been corrupted. You can say 
     you haven't and you can say you will attack insurance issues 
     in the same way, but you won't. You can't.''
       Salant thinks SPJ should adopt an absolute ban on speaking 
     fees as it revises its ethics code. Most critics want some 
     kind of public disclosure at the very least.
       Says the Wall Street Journal's Murray, ``You tell me what 
     is the difference between somebody who works full time for 
     the National Association of Realtors and somebody who takes 
     $40,000 a year in speaking fees from Realtor groups. It's not 
     clear to me there's a big distinction. I'm not saying that 
     because you take $40,000 a year from Realtors that you ought 
     to be thrown out of the profession. But at the very least, 
     you ought to disclose that.''
       And so Murray is implementing a disclosure policy. By the 
     end of the year, the 40 journalists working in his bureau 
     will be required to list outside income in a report that will 
     be available to the pubic.
       ``People are not just cynical about politicians,'' says 
     Murray. ``They are cynical about us. Anything we can do to 
     ease that cynicism is worth doing.''
       Sen. Grassley applauds the move. Twice he has taken to the 
     floor of the Senate to urge journalists to disclose what they 
     earn on the lecture circuit.
       ``It's both the amount and doing it,'' he says. ``I say the 
     pay's too much and we want to make sure the fee is disclosed. 
     The average worker in my state gets about $21,000 a year. 
     Imagine what he or she thinks when a journalist gets that 
     much for just one speech?''
       Public disclosure, says Grassley, would curtail the 
     practice.
       Disclosure is often touted as the answer. Many journalists, 
     such as Kinsley and Wall Street Journal columnist Al Hunt--a 
     television pundit and Murray's predecessor as bureau chief--
     have said they will disclose their engagements and fees only 
     if their colleagues do so as well.
       Other high-priced speakers have equally little enthusiasm 
     for making the information public. ``I don't like the idea,'' 
     says ABC's Greenfield. ``I don't like telling people how much 
     I get paid.''
       But one ABC correspondent says he has no problem with 
     public scrutiny. John Stossel, a reporter on ``20/20,'' 
     voluntarily agreed to
      disclose some of the ``absurd'' fees he's earned. Last year 
     and through March of this year Stossel raked in $160,430 
     for speeches--$135,280 of which was donated to hospital, 
     scholarship and conservation programs.
       ``I just think secrecy in general is a bad thing,'' says 
     Stossel, who did not object to ABC's new policy. ``We [in the 
     media] do have some power. We do have some influence. That's 
     why I've come to conclude I should disclose, so people can 
     judge whether I can be bought.''
       (Stossel didn't always embrace this notion so 
     enthusiastically. Last year he told AJR he had received 
     between $2,000 and $10,000 for a luncheon speech, but 
     wouldn't be more precise.)
       Brian Lamb, founder and chairman of C-SPAN, has a simpler 
     solution, one that also has been adopted by ABC's Peter 
     Jennings, NBC's Tom Brokaw and CBS' Dan Rather and Connie 
     Chung. They speak, but not for money.
       ``I never have done it,'' Lamb says. ``It sends out one of 
     those messages that's been sent out of this town for the last 
     20 years: Everybody does everything for money. When I go out 
     to speak to somebody I want to have the freedom to say 
     exactly what I think. I don't want to have people suspect 
     that I'm there because I'm being paid for it.''
       On February 20, according to the printed program, Philip 
     Morris executives from around the world would have a chance 
     to listen to Cokie and Steve Roberts at 7 a.m. while enjoying 
     a continental breakfast. ``Change in Washington: A Media 
     Perspective with Cokie and Steve Roberts,'' was the scheduled 
     event at the PGA resort in Palm Beach during Philip Morris' 
     three-day invitational golf tournament.
       A reporter who sent the program to AJR thought it odd that 
     Cokie Roberts would speak for Philip Morris in light of the 
     network's new policy. Even more surprising, he thought, was 
     that she would speak to a company that's suing ABC for libel 
     over a ``Day One'' segment that alleged Philip Morris adds 
     nicotine to cigarettes to keep smokers addicted. The case is 
     scheduled to go to trial in September.
       At the last minute, Cokie Roberts was a no-show, says one 
     of the organizers. ``Cokie was sick or something,'' says 
     Nancy Schaub of Event Links, which put on the golf tournament 
     for Philip Morris. ``Only Steve Roberts came.''
       Cokie Roberts won't talk to AJR about why she changed her 
     plans. Perhaps she got Dick Wald's message.
       ``Of course, it's tempting and it's nice,'' Wald says of 
     hefty honoraria. ``Of course, they [ABC correspondents] have 
     rights as private citizens. It's not an easy road to go 
     [[Page S8492]] down. But there are some things you just 
     shouldn't do and that's one of them.''
     

                          ____________________