> There's nothing inherently wrong with the media paying for information.

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.