HMVNipper
Jun 13, 2002, 10:02 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columns/media-mix.htm
Paul and Heather's pics came at a price
CNN
People was among the publications that paid for the wedding photos
Celebrities make all kinds of demands on, and deals with, the media when it comes to publicity.
But one that Paul and Heather McCartney made about their wedding photo got a mixed response.
Their stipulation was that individual outlets had to pay a $1,400 fee for one-time use of the photo, with proceeds earmarked to Heather's favorite charity, Adopt-A-Minefield, an anti-minefield group.
News agencies such as the Associated Press were barred, meaning papers to which they supply photos couldn't use the photo unless they ponied up the $1,400, which smaller papers typically cannot afford.
Entertainment magazines such as People and Us, and programs such as Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood, didn't balk. Nor did the New York Post, New York's Daily News and the network morning shows, which ran the photo of the couple leaving a chapel at Castle Leslie in Ireland.
But several big newspapers — USA TODAY, The New York Times and The Washington Post — did. The Post said the price was too high; The Times and USA TODAY objected to paying for news.
"It is our well-established practice not to pay for news," said Times spokesman Toby Usnik. The Times does pay syndicators for photos, but it doesn't pay "people depicted."
Said USA TODAY editor Karen Jurgensen: "We wouldn't pay for an interview, and we wouldn't pay for a photo that, in effect, was sold by the source. It's the equivalent of them saying, 'We'll let you interview us for a certain amount of money,' and we don't do that."
Said McCartney spokesman Paul Freundlich: "It's certainly the prerogative of the media not to run it."
Alex Jones of Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center said the McCartneys' stipulation was "a step toward a higher plane — using leverage for a decent cause." But it's still part of a trend in which stars "attach strings in exchange for access — 'You have to give us the cover' or 'You can only ask this question or that' — and it has gotten really obnoxious."
Celebrity editors and producers see it differently.
"Paul McCartney's wedding is big news," says Entertainment Tonight chief Linda Bell Blue. "The charge going to charity made it all better."
Said Us editor Bonnie Fuller: "We pay usage fees for photos all the time, and it's our job to inform the readers about major celebrity events." People spokeswoman Susan Ollinick said, "We looked at this from all angles and decided the newsworthiness outweighed any journalistic concerns."
Daily News editor Ed Kosner doesn't see any great distinction between "us paying a syndicated fee or (Heather) wanting to give the money to charity."
E-mail: pjohnson@usatoday.com
Paul and Heather's pics came at a price
CNN
People was among the publications that paid for the wedding photos
Celebrities make all kinds of demands on, and deals with, the media when it comes to publicity.
But one that Paul and Heather McCartney made about their wedding photo got a mixed response.
Their stipulation was that individual outlets had to pay a $1,400 fee for one-time use of the photo, with proceeds earmarked to Heather's favorite charity, Adopt-A-Minefield, an anti-minefield group.
News agencies such as the Associated Press were barred, meaning papers to which they supply photos couldn't use the photo unless they ponied up the $1,400, which smaller papers typically cannot afford.
Entertainment magazines such as People and Us, and programs such as Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood, didn't balk. Nor did the New York Post, New York's Daily News and the network morning shows, which ran the photo of the couple leaving a chapel at Castle Leslie in Ireland.
But several big newspapers — USA TODAY, The New York Times and The Washington Post — did. The Post said the price was too high; The Times and USA TODAY objected to paying for news.
"It is our well-established practice not to pay for news," said Times spokesman Toby Usnik. The Times does pay syndicators for photos, but it doesn't pay "people depicted."
Said USA TODAY editor Karen Jurgensen: "We wouldn't pay for an interview, and we wouldn't pay for a photo that, in effect, was sold by the source. It's the equivalent of them saying, 'We'll let you interview us for a certain amount of money,' and we don't do that."
Said McCartney spokesman Paul Freundlich: "It's certainly the prerogative of the media not to run it."
Alex Jones of Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center said the McCartneys' stipulation was "a step toward a higher plane — using leverage for a decent cause." But it's still part of a trend in which stars "attach strings in exchange for access — 'You have to give us the cover' or 'You can only ask this question or that' — and it has gotten really obnoxious."
Celebrity editors and producers see it differently.
"Paul McCartney's wedding is big news," says Entertainment Tonight chief Linda Bell Blue. "The charge going to charity made it all better."
Said Us editor Bonnie Fuller: "We pay usage fees for photos all the time, and it's our job to inform the readers about major celebrity events." People spokeswoman Susan Ollinick said, "We looked at this from all angles and decided the newsworthiness outweighed any journalistic concerns."
Daily News editor Ed Kosner doesn't see any great distinction between "us paying a syndicated fee or (Heather) wanting to give the money to charity."
E-mail: pjohnson@usatoday.com