What is Catch and Kill?
What is a tabloid? Are tabloids bad? Short answer. No.
This week, as former President Trump is on trial for hush payment money to “catch and kill” a story about an alleged former affair during the 2016 election, it’s an excellent opportunity to point out some key media literacy points that are relevant to this case.
Watching pundits on cable news trying to explain the practice of “catch and kill” and how it differs from journalism has been excruciatingly cringeworthy and often wrong. Especially when the stakes are so high for truth in America, I thought I would aim to explain the difference as part of our media literacy training.
TODAY’S TAKEAWAY: Consumers must recognize that the National Enquirer is not journalism. It is an entertainment medium. The content it runs can sometimes be accurate, but most often not. Journalism seeks truth at all costs. The National Enquirer, on the other hand, seeks money at all costs.
The National Enquirer’s business model is to pay for salacious content, and often, the story's outcome goes to the highest monetary bidder—true or false. For this reason, the source is not credible as a journalism source.
In this case, “catch and kill” occurs when a source is told that a salacious story might run about them, and they pay money to prevent that from happening. Contrary to myth, this practice never happens in journalism or professional public relations.
In watching this trial, if American people take away that this is how newsrooms work, this will have catastrophic effects on truth in our country.
While “catch and kill” is unethical in journalism, we must be clear that it is not illegal in the entertainment industry. Though sleazy and gross, Donald Trump is welcome to do this as a private citizen—but the legal problems are related to whether he paid for it out of his campaign or as an elected official.
The balance is between free speech and press freedoms and ensuring people get accurate information about elected officials. I feel the best way to do that is through media literacy, which is why I am writing this post.
If people want to consume or produce salacious, sleazy drama, that’s their right. However, it can be dangerous if they are unaware of what they are doing and are misled. I love watching 90 Day Fiancé, for instance, but I know this is not news. People need to know what they are reading and consuming and evaluate it.
The current case we are watching play out is precisely why I spent so much time trying to outline the difference between a journalist and all other forms of media, which we will continue to explore in this Substack over time.
In his testimony this week, Pecker testified that he used “checkbook journalism.” That is an oxymoron. Professional journalists do not engage in this practice. Someone who participates in this practice cannot be called a journalist. They would be fired from any professional journalism outlet.
“Catch and kill” is not a professional practice by ethical journalists or public relations professionals. It is not a standard practice in any newsroom and is a fireable offense for even having the appearance of that happening by news editorial standards.
What is a tabloid? Are they always bad?
Nope, tabloids are not always bad. Many people often mistakingly believe that a tabloid is meant to be a sleazy source of information. While that might be a good guess, it’s wrong.
The term tabloid refers to the size of the paper on which a publication is printed. If you go to the grocery store and see the size of the National Enquirer on the stands, you can compare it to others in terms of size and appearance to understand the definition. A media outlet shaped like the National Enquirer is called a tabloid.
In comparison, for instance, the New York Times is a newspaper because of the size of the paper it is printed on.
Tabloids are not always wrong or sources of disinformation, so evaluating your sources is essential. A tabloid is media, but it is not always journalism. For this reason, we can’t conclude all of one type of media is good or bad. Our evaluation needs to move beyond that.
The difference between a tabloid and a newspaper is simply the size of the paper! However, the difference between disinformation and news is about the content presented and the practice for how it is obtained.
We cannot conclude that all media is shaped like the National Enquirer is not good. That would be the wrong takeaway from this discussion. See myth one in my previous post—the media type does not always indicate if it is true or false. If we want to be good media consumers, we have to look beyond that.
The red flag here is paying sources. That’s the difference between journalism and entertainment marketing. If you want to learn more about some ways to investigate sources, see my previous post on questions to start and read upcoming posts in the future, as I intend to bring it up more often and provide resources.
Furthermore, in a later post, I will address a question that recently came up on a listserv I am on. A person asked if we should consider offering stipends to diverse sources for their time to ensure more equity and diversity in the media.
While the intention is appreciated, the practice is not savory in journalism and has severe adverse consequences for the overall journalistic integrity to have offered money to the sources—as can be seen here in this case. If someone is paid money, it needs to be disclosed, and that disclosure may hurt and compromise the overall cause and intention.
How do we make the playing field more equitable by encouraging more diverse voices in journalistic coverage and maintain journalistic integrity? That’s a topic we will explore in the future regarding how to simultaneously ensure pay equity and truth.