The Greatest Gift

Generally speaking, it is a good practice to not accept anything from a source. Students of mass communication may recall the payola scandal involving record companies paying off disc jockeys to give their records more airtime or falsify ratings. These dj’s acted as gatekeepers, deciding what music the masses would hear. Journalists (reporters, editors, and the like) share a similar position in that they influence public opinion just by deciding what to include in a story, and what stories to include. Because gifts can create a bias, it is generally a good practice to avoid them.
Strict adherence to this axiom could, however, become costly to a news organization and hinder the free flow of information (free meaning as cheap as possible). If a reporter had to cover the cost admission to events, or to review materials, this cost would ultimately be passed down to the consumer. This does not serve the public interest. Especially considering that the bureaucratic structure of an organization minimizes this type of bias. What I mean is that the organization would typically pick up most of these expenses (which they pass on to customers – mostly advertisers); so, it’s all free to the reporter anyways. Who really cares if the organization pays for it, or gets compensation or a discount? Ideally, the cost of the publicity, good or bad (if there is such a thing), is endured by the object of the story, not those receiving the information.
It seems, at this point, that it comes down to the definition of ‘gift’. Would you define a gift as something given to nurture a relationship or make an impression? Or would you broaden the definition to embody anything that the reporter or organization receives for free or a discounted rate. Either way it is defined, one thing remains true. All journalists routinely elicit the greatest gift from every one of their sources: information. This gift is received free of obligation to present the source in any way other than objective, and no one questions whether a source should be compensated for their cooperation.
After spinning my wheels on this question, I will close the circle with this – If the so-called gift can be qualified as the free flow of information, then a journalist or organization is not only justified, but obligated, to accept. But when the gift is gratuitous, serving only to pamper, the only obligation the organization has is to report on how this company attempted to buy, rather than earn, a good review. And with that, we've come full circle.