Catch and kill

Catch and kill is a surreptitious technique employed by newspapers and media outlets to prevent an individual from publicly revealing information damaging to a third party.

Using a legally enforceable non-disclosure agreement, the publisher purports to buy exclusive rights to "catch" the damaging story from the individual, but then "kills" the story for the benefit of the third party by preventing it from ever being published. The individual with the information frequently does not realize that the tabloid intends to suppress the individual's story instead of publishing it. The practice is technically distinct from using hush money, in which the individual is bribed by the third party to intentionally conceal the damaging information, but identical for all practical intents and purposes.

The

It may also refer to the practice of buying up competitors to eliminate competition and maintain a

catch-and-release

, a common term in flyfishing – meaning the fish is caught and then it's released back into the water.

Legal and ethical questions

The practice of "catch and kill" raises a host of issues that permeate

free speech, especially the freedom of the press

exercised by the editor.

• Is paying for a story a violation of journalistic ethics?
• Does the practice of "catch and kill" have any relation to journalism? If it does not, why should freedom of the press protect such a practice?
• How does a contract between a media outlet and a source differ from other contracts, especially those for hush money?
• If an informant violates the contract: Can he avoid paying the contractual damages, given that the editor bought the story with the false pretension of publishing it?
• If an editor has to publish a story: Would this amount to compelled speech, which is forbidden by the 1st Amendment?
• Journalists often discard a story after completing preliminary investigations. How is this different from an editorial decision not to publish a story?

Leonard M. Niehoff, professor of the University of Michigan Law School, concludes that both catching a story and killing it enjoys 1st Amendment protection.^[5]

Examples

Instances where newspapers have been accused of using catch and kill include:

• In 2003, the National Enquirer signed a $20,000 contract with Gigi Goyette to get exclusive rights about the story of her alleged extramarital relationship with Arnold Schwarzenegger, who at the time was a candidate for Governor of California, but the newspaper never solicited further information from Goyette.^[6]

• In 2015, the National Enquirer allegedly approached
  Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies, and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators.^[8][9][10]
• In 2015, the National Enquirer's parent company
  American Media paid a former doorman at Trump Tower $30,000 for the exclusive rights to his allegations that he overheard a conversation about a child Donald Trump had with a woman who is not his wife, but never published an article on the topic. In 2018, the doorman's lawyer indicated that AMI released him from his obligations to keep silent about what he said he had heard.^[11][12][13]

• David Pecker, is a friend of Trump.^{[1][14][15][16]}

• Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal

References