The TV Zone

Say what? NBC News is not paying for an interview with Paris Hilton, after all? In the wake of that sensational New York Post article - actually, printed allegation - that's the final outcome? No payment, but (almost certainly) an interview?

[And if you're just tuning in now, check out TMZ.com, which is reporting that NBC has pulled the plug on the interview. But just in case it hasn't, read on...]

Confused? Of course, and a glance at this morning's headlines won't help. All they can tell you is that there was a huge fire yesterday in medialand that NBC managed to douse just in time for the final editions. The NY Post provided the match, claiming that NBC News was to pay a million bucks to Hilton for an interview on "Today" (performed by Meredith Vieira) after her release from jail. ABC News - who knows? Maybe the original leaker? - was infuriated because it thought Babs Walters had her locked up (no pun intended, seriously).

This was all sensational because a.) it was Paris; b.) Babs was angry again, just weeks after the Rosie fiasco, and c.) this involved a news division which is now in the throes of a brutal NBC 2.0 scale-back, which has meant the firing of everyone from Stone Phillips on down. At this rate, the only two employees left at NBC News in a few years will be Brian Williams and Tim Russert - but at least they'll always have Paris. And finally, d.) This promised to be the most revolting instance of checkbook journalism in thirty years, or at least since CBS News paid for Bob Haldeman's memories of the Watergate story back in the early '70s (after which the networks decided that maybe checkbook journalism wasn't such a good idea after all.)

NBC News ducked reporter questions all day, then finally, around 5:15, issued this: "NBC News has not and will not pay for interviews." Why it should take all day to deliver this remains a mystery, but that was it. Fire out. No story.

Again - not quite. Both the LA Times and Washington Post report today that the likely outcome of all this could be one of those fig leaf entertainment deals, in which the celebrity promises an interview to the news division, but gets paid - in effect - by the entertainment division. A sensational example of this form of footsy took place at Fox recently, when Judith Regan managed to justify a huge payment to O.J. for a tell-all book in return for a primetime interview. NBC paid a couple million for the concert that also netted news interviews with a couple heirs to the crown. There are many other examples, and they almost always make the networks look sordid, crummy, sleazy and craven.

A "multimedia" deal will almost certainly happen here too - unless Leslie Moonves (CBS) or Bob Iger (ABC) step up and promise her a primetime series ("It's the Paris Show!" Thursdays at 9, 8 central time) or a Disneyworld attraction ("Paris Hilton Space Mountain").

Why is all this appalling? And why does it make NBC News look so bad, even if news doesn't technically sign the check (which is a mere and irrelevant formality anyway?) Tom Rosenstiel, executive director or the Project for Excellence in Journalism, explains:

"The argument against paying someone for their story is the argument that you're creating an incentive for them to say something that isn't the truth. You're negotiating with them, finally, over what they're going to tell, [or] 'if you're not going to talk about that, we're not going to pay you as much.' You're negotiating over a product and that creates an incentive for people to hype the product. If you say, 'the reason you should talk is you can get your story out' then...your relationship [with the source] is completely different. You're no longer vested in the story being a certain way."

Naturally, there are other reasons why the process is outrageous - and don't forget, we're talking about Paris Hilton here. The money that is ultimately paid to her will be money that NBC News - already depleted - will not use to cover Iraq or a million other stories, large and small, that go by the boards each and every day. It'll diminish NBC News even further, to a point one day when the fig leaves will be dispensed with altogether. It'll be naked news, all the time, metaphorically speaking. Other Paris'-of-the-future interviews will lead "Nightly;" "Extra" (also owned by NBCU) will have additional outtakes. Vieira, if she's still around to stomach this travesty, will post additional footage on the "Today" website; "Dateline" will do a series; the life movie will air in sweeps; a Universal theatrical (which Paris-of-the-future will exec produce) will be released the following summer; while Bravo, Sci Fi, and USA will each air interstitials promoting Paris-of-the-future's new line of cosmetics (underwritten by GE, which will suddenly find itself in the cosmetics business.)

The news division - in other words - will no longer be a "news division" but a division that enables or promotes the profit goals of all the other divisions, while pretending that it's still in the news business, which - of course - it will not be.

And speaking of GE, no wonder it's thinking of dumping NBC. The future looks like hell.

And speaking of NBC's future, this is it...(from askmen.com)