Charles B. Seth r (2, 1.1-1 s' Should the Media Buy News? The CBS television network paid H.R. Haldeman, President Nixon's chief of staff in happier times, a siza- ble sum—$25,000 is the rowest estimate —for submitting to an interview that was broadcast in two one-hour seg- ments late last month. Since then, there has been much discussion center- ing on this question: Should the media buy conversations with public figures, particularly public figures who have been found guilty of crimes? Traditionally, newspaper editors have recoiled from paying news sources with a moral horror that is a little puzzling in a business where, for example, the stolen document is not unacceptable—provided your own staf- fer did not do the stealing. On the other hand, the excluiive magazine article and the celebrity book have long been staples in the world of big time media spending. The bosses of CBS, in defending the deal with Haldeman, put it in that category. They weren't buying news, they say, al- though they hoped the broadcasts would.be newsy; they were buying a "memoir." CBS News Photo The network is defensive about the "The Haldeman-Wallace interview appears to have been a bargain." Haldeman purchase. There are assur- ances that it was carefully considered and was admittedly a "close call" and of the interview itseit, nome movies that the whole subject is under review. (as, in the Haldeman case) or other Nevertheless, we probably can expect trimmings. If family members—or the more of the same all through the me- . dog—come extra, the audience should/ dia. be told that, too. . In terms of dollars, the Haldeman 2. The restrictions, if any, on the in- appears to haveave been one of ' terviewer. Were some questions or television's great bargains. The highest areas rules out of bounds in advance? figure mentioned in the speculation 3. The way in which the interview about what he was paid is $100,000 for was edited for viewing (or publication). what boiled down to two hours of view- Did the subject take part in the ing. I am told by a networkofficial that process? Could he insist that certain an hour-long shoot-'em-up can cost as much as $300,000 to snake. Perhaps Haldeman didn't have the pulling power of Mannix or Columbo. But by any measure the interview was an inexpensive way to fill air time, and with material that, could be billed as The News Business straight from the 'den of iniquity. Assuming that I. am right in feeling passages be retained in the edited that for economic 'reasons, if for no version? other, we are in for more such (I am assured by a CBS executive "memoirs" on television, and perhaps that Haldeman put no limitations on their counterparts in the print media, I the questioning and that he did not would like to make a Modest Proposal take part in the editing. CBS stead- for the Protection of the Public. Let it fastly refuses to tell how much Halde- be required that the purchased inter- man was paid or to comment on the views be preceded by this information: amounts that have been mentioned.) 1. The price paid to the subject But even if these or similar ground and exactly what it covered—the rules were adopted, the purchased in- "discussion" prior to the interview (there was reported to be 44 hours of this in the Haldeman case), the length HALDEMAN: Well, you're bug--- bungling—bun—bundling into a—a bag a lot of different apples and or- anges and carrots. WALLACE: But they all—they all- worked for, in, around, on the pay,roll' of the White House. HALDEMAN: I—I don't—Well, left see, maybe they all did. WALLACE: They all did. HALDEMAN: No, Liddy never • worked—yes he did- WALLACE: Yes, he did. He was in the plumbers. HALDEMAN:—he worked for the there is an enormous temptation to do plumbers. You're right. You're right.• that and to want to take the guilty Okay, let's take them one at a time: The writer is an associate editor plea under the kinds of pressures that The—One of the problems we've got have been put on us . . . But on the of The Washington Post, serving as here is that all those things keep get- basis of living with yourself, you've an internal "ombudsman." From ting jungled—jumbled into the—this got to be able to, I at least, I can't time to time he also writes a column bag and—and then added to Water- speak for anyone else, I've -got to be on the media. gate, and it all comes out as—as a—as able to know that I'm in a truthful an integral whole, which it is not. It and honest position. And a plea of was not at the time. , terview would continue to have certain WALLACE: Well, these all worked guilty would not be truthful or honest inherent problems. In theory, a tough for the White House. They were all on on my part and so I can't do it. interviewer (and Mike Wallace, who did the payroll of the White House. They. • the Haldeman job, has a reputation as were all engaged in gumshoeing or: The Modest Proposal I outlined is meant seriously (although I have one of the toughest) can dig deep. But wiretapping or—Some of them have- experience, certainly confirmed in this gone to jail. Why did the White House_ no illusions that it or a less drastic instance, has shown that television in- need that- proposal by the National News Council terviews, particularly of highly placed HALDEMAN: Well, let's—lers- will be adopted), but in view of the" above I can't resist the temptation to- or highly paid subjects, tend to come WALLACE:—with your accomplish: make out bland, dull and even fawning. ments? a facetious amendment: Let there be established a National At times the transcript of the Halde- HALDEMAN: Let's take them bit bit: Why—why it needed the plumbers' Memoir Council to preview purchased man interview resembles the less co-, interviews and make sure the public herent moments in those memorable interest is protected. If the council little talks in the Oval Office. Try this WALLACE: Was fdr leaks? HALDEMAN:—has—has been cov- finds clear-cut evidence of self-serv- as an example of, high-level communi- ice by the person interviewed, it cation: • ered ad nauseam, I guess- qhAll • order a rebate, to be reported at the, WALLACE: Mr. Haldeman, why did And so on.' beginning of the broadcast or article. the White House need the plumbers— Well, dullness is not entirely un- In the Haldeman instance, it might Gordon Liddy, Howard Hunt, Anthony known to teleVision, or the print media have gone like this: Ulasewicz, Jack Caulfield, Donald Seg- either, and the viewer and the reader "Mr. Haldeman received $50,000 (or retti—all of what John Mitchell de- always have the option of turning offs whatever it was) for his presence, con; scribed as "the White House horrors"? literally or figuratively. But there versation and home movies, but he was Why did you need them? another element of the superitar obliged to refund $7,500 for the self: tervieiv that raises a more- serious.serious serving protestation of innocence you question—the element -of monumental will hear in the closing minutes of the self-service. This runs through both in- • second broadcast." stailments of the Haldeman interview, Perhaps provision could even have and reaches its purest form in the clos- been made for a beep at the appropri- ing minutes of the second one: • ate moment, so the viewer could give WALLACE: Mr. Haldeman, Dean: the volume control a twist and, in ef- confessed. Krogh confessed. Colson. feet, share in the rebate. made a bargain with the prosecutor. Magruder. All of these fellows who worked either for you or with you. Has it never occurred. to you to do the same? V HALDEMAN: I have to assume, Mike, that each of those people felt he was guilty of what he confessed of. If I felt I were guilty of any crime for which I have been charged, or any other crime, I'd confess to the guilt of that. WALLACE: It has never occurred to you that it might be wise-at this mo- ment to take your losses, get it over with and start a new life? HALDEMAN: Yes. It has occurred to me. If there were, in fact, a charge to which I was guilty, I could in good. conscience plead guilty to it. And