PressEthic

The Smoking Gun reported today that Jane Pauley is suing The New York Times for interviewing her under false pretenses. Pauley was under the impression that she was giving an interview for a story on mental health, however, her photo and comments were the featured content of an advertorial that ran for an advertising supplement for a drug company.

The web article explained:

Claiming that The New York Times duped her into granting an interview for what turned out to be a drug company-funded advertising supplement, Jane Pauley has sued the newspaper for fraud. In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court, the 55-year-old broadcaster charges that she believed that the Times interview was for a news article on mental health issues, but that the story (accompanied by a full-page photo) ran in an October 2005 "special advertising supplement" promoting psychotherapeutic drugs sold by Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical firms.

Pauley, who used to host The Today Show and Dateline on NBC, "alleges that the Times 'duped' her into lending her name to its advertising gambit, according to the lawsuit," the article explained.

A web article on editorandpublisher.com included a response from The Times:

Catherine Mathis, a spokesperson for the Times, said that the paper does not believes Pauley's case has merit. "Ms. Pauley's assistant was told that the article for which Ms. Pauley was to be interviewed would appear in a special advertising supplement and Ms. Pauley agreed to participate," said Mathis.

Clearly, someone is not being truthful. Either Pauley was approached for an interview for an advertisement or she wasn't. Unfortunately, it may be her word against The Times'. But what, exactly, is at stake? If Pauley had agreed to do an interview for an advertising supplement, then she would no doubt expect some kind of payment for her endorsement. The Smoking Gun website has excerpts from the lawsuit available to view, which emphasizes Pauley's closeness to the issue, citing her own struggle with bipolar disorder.

This particular incident serves to remind us to be truthful and transparent in our interviewing endeavors. Add this one to the rulebook. Never break the law to get a story, and never "dupe" someone into an interview.