A serious question :- In the context of this story, what is the difference between wikileaks offering money for information from a whistle blower and a media outlet offering money for a story (ie chequebook journalism)?
I see it more like when the police offer a reward for "information leading to the capture of ...".
There's nothing inherently wrong with the media paying for information. It's the same as paying for hotels and plane tickets to get to and stay at where the story is.
The money issue becomes real when it flows in the other direction. Here's XYZ to run this pro-Clinton piece where XYZ could be something tangible like cash or intangible like future access for quotes/interviews.
I'm tempted to agree, but almost every reputable media outlet does in fact claim that there's sometimes wrong with paying for stories, most in their own ethics handbook.
The common explanation is that "paying for information creates an additional incentive for subjects to lie or embellish the truth. And even if a subject tells the truth, the fact that he’s been paid undermines the journalist’s position as a disinterested observer".
However, this seems rather absolute for what appears to be only mild cause.