> 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.