Deborah Norville

The weekend began with word that there would be no dollars for dish from soon-to-be freed inmate Paris Hilton. This news coming after at least two broadcast networks went to great pains to explain that any sums they had considered expending were just licensing fees for supporting materials -- NOT, of course, for an interview with a convicted criminal.

The statement from ABC that it had offered $100,000 for access to 'photos and videotapes' of Ms. Hilton couldn't help but look lame: We all know how difficult it is to get Paris Hilton to pause long enough for a lensman to snap a shot!

But the 'photos and videotapes' of Paris Hilton must be pretty darned good, given that the competing network, NBC, reportedly offered an 'other-galactic' sum, rumored by the New York Times to be north of $750,000. 'Could it be,' inquiring minds might speculate, 'that another 'sex-tape' exists?'. Surely baby pictures and videos of family moments (think blowing out birthday candles and opening gifts Christmas morning) aren't that eye-popping. If so, every American's net worth just jumped by the same percentages as the new moguls at The Blackstone Group.

No. Even the most gullible could see through this one and the view wasn't pretty. Based on statements attributed to ABC and reported by the Times, the picture painted was one of a celebrity shopping for a media deal like she was looking for a new pair of Manolos and dictating who would be asking the questions. Would NBC actually agree to pay in the neighborhood of a million dollars? Was Meredith Viera the designated interrogator because she'd been less disparaging than Today partner Matt Lauer? The speculation alone does huge damage to NBC and Ms. Viera, who had acquitted herself admirably since assuming her new role.

NBC News says it "never has, never will" pay for interviews. A rep for the Hiltons issues a similar disclaimer: "Paris Hilton is not being paid for any television interview."

But it's not hard to envision a scenario in which representatives of Paris Hilton might be seeking compensation for an interview. Ours has become a world in which mini-celebs are paid to show up at parties, a place where get-out-of-jail/just-sprung-from-rehab parties are sponsored by the highest bidders.

Only thing about all of this, it's dumb money. For a nanosecond, does anyone believe Paris Hilton will come out of jail and NOT talk? Heck, she's already done TWO interviews for free while behind bars! Why pay for what will inevitably happen gratis (and it is, on "Larry King Live")? The SMART money would keep the checkbook in the desk and the microphones tucked inside the news van. She'll talk -- she can't help herself. And it won't cost anyone a thing.

Except -- it already has cost dearly. Both ABC and NBC appear, in some capacity, to have been willing players in a bidding war to talk to a criminal. The numbers vary, but it all reminds of the punch line of a long ago joke: 'Now that we've established what you are, we can negotiate the price.' Meredith Viera appears to have been unfairly diminished ... if only because she was reportedly deemed 'acceptable' to conduct the interview. I bet she's feeling pretty steamed.

Both networks, each with an impressive legacy of excellent programming and insightful journalism, are diminished. In the hubbub of the race to nail Paris -- the interview, of course -- excellent recent work, including Diane Sawyer's reports from Syria and North Korea or Ann Curry's gutsy trips to The Sudan, are easily forgotten.

Forgotten, as well, the reason those news divisions were created in the first place -- or for whom those broadcast licenses are granted. It's the public. The public may be 'curious' about this odd creation of the celeb-obssessed media, but they know the soon-to-be-released criminal has little to do with their lives. They also know funds which could have been budgeted for stories about issues that ARE germaine are being foolishly deployed.

Like I said ... it was dumb money.