American Media Inc.: The Tabloid Publisher That Paid for Stories It Buried, and the NDAs That Kept Subjects Silent

American Media Inc., the publisher of the National Enquirer and other tabloid titles, engaged in a documented pattern of purchasing the exclusive story rights of individuals with negative or embarrassing accounts about powerful figures with whom AMI or its chief executive had business or personal relationships — and then declining to publish those accounts, effectively suppressing them from public view through the legal mechanism of the exclusive story purchase contract and broad nondisclosure agreements that prevented the sources from selling or discussing the accounts with other media outlets.DOCUMENTED

The practice, widely described as catch-and-kill in media industry terminology, was not novel to AMI — tabloid publishers have used similar arrangements historically — but the scale, pattern, and relationship between AMI's suppression activities and the interests of specific individuals who were subjects of the suppressed accounts became the focus of regulatory, legal, and journalistic investigation in a sustained period that produced court filings, regulatory agreements, and first-hand testimony from former AMI editorial staff documenting how the practice operated in practice.DOCUMENTED

How the Catch-and-Kill Mechanism Worked

In the documented AMI model, when an individual with a story to sell approached the National Enquirer or another AMI publication, the company would assess the story's commercial value — both as a potential publication and as a suppression asset — and enter into a story purchase agreement that granted AMI exclusive worldwide rights to the account. The agreement required the source to cooperate with AMI's editorial team for a defined period, provide supporting documentation, and sign a nondisclosure clause prohibiting them from discussing or selling the account to any other party.DOCUMENTED

When the story was one that AMI's leadership decided to suppress rather than publish — because the subject of the story was someone with whom AMI or its chief executive had a beneficial relationship, or because the story was brought to AMI's attention by the subject for the purpose of suppressing it — the story purchase agreement's nondisclosure clause remained in effect even though no story was published. The source received the contracted payment, AMI retained the exclusive rights and the silence the contract provided, and the account disappeared from the media landscape without any journalism having occurred.REVIEWED

The Non-Prosecution Agreement

Federal prosecutors found that in at least one documented catch-and-kill transaction, AMI's payment to suppress a story constituted an unlawful contribution to a federal political campaign — because the suppression benefited a federal candidate in a way that was coordinated with the campaign and that exceeded applicable contribution limits. AMI entered into a non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors, in which the company agreed to cooperate with the ongoing investigation, to refrain from violating campaign finance laws, and to implement internal compliance measures — in exchange for prosecutors declining to prosecute the company for the campaign finance violation.DOCUMENTED

The non-prosecution agreement created a formal legal record of AMI's acknowledgment that the specific transaction in question involved conduct that federal prosecutors determined violated federal campaign finance law — an acknowledgment that distinguished the transaction from the editorial judgments that AMI argued governed its story acquisition and publication decisions in other contexts. The agreement did not resolve all questions about the broader pattern of catch-and-kill activities, which remained subjects of civil litigation and journalistic investigation.REVIEWED

Former AMI editors testified that certain story suppression decisions were communicated from the company's chief executive directly — described not as editorial judgments but as directives to acquire and hold specific accounts for the benefit of identified subjects who were not to be covered negatively.

The Journalism Ethics Questions

The catch-and-kill practice raises fundamental journalism ethics questions that apply beyond the legal violations documented in the AMI case. A news organization that uses its position to purchase and suppress accounts on behalf of subjects rather than to inform the public is not functioning as journalism — it is functioning as a reputation management service operated under the cover of journalistic form. The sources who were paid and silenced in catch-and-kill arrangements had typically approached the organization seeking to get their account into public view; what they received instead was a payment that purchased their silence while presenting the outward appearance of a commercial news transaction.REVIEWED

The broad nondisclosure clauses in story purchase agreements are particularly significant from an ethical standpoint, because they used the legal machinery of a news contract to produce an outcome that is the opposite of journalism — the permanent suppression of an account by the one organization that could have published it and the legal prevention of the source from taking the account elsewhere. Media ethics frameworks generally hold that news organizations owe their primary duty to their audience and to the public interest, not to the subjects of their coverage — a duty that is inverted by the catch-and-kill model.REVIEWED

Sources Still Under NDA

The legal effect of the nondisclosure clauses signed in connection with AMI catch-and-kill agreements remains a subject of legal debate and ongoing litigation. Sources who entered into story purchase agreements and signed NDAs as part of those agreements may have grounds to argue that NDAs that facilitated a criminal enterprise — specifically, an illegal campaign contribution — are unenforceable on public policy grounds. The enforceability of any specific NDA depends on the precise language of the agreement, the jurisdiction, and the specific legal theory under which the NDA's validity is challenged.DOCUMENTED

Individuals who entered into story purchase or nondisclosure agreements with American Media Inc. or its affiliates and who believe they have information of public interest that those agreements are being used to suppress are encouraged to consult with a media attorney about their options. Watchdog Journal's secure tip channel at /tips is available for individuals seeking guidance on how to communicate information of public concern while navigating the constraints of existing legal agreements — though Watchdog Journal is not able to provide legal advice about specific agreements, and independent legal counsel is strongly recommended for anyone considering disclosure of information covered by an existing NDA.

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.