There's still a difference between being in a symbiotic relationship with the subjects you cover and the rags that cover you and having a direct financial inter

There's still a difference between being in a symbiotic relationship with the subjects you cover and the rags that cover you and having a direct financial interest in the subjects (or companies) you cover. The latter being arguably the biggest journalistic sin. It would only really be the same thing if (say) Gala has a 10% stake in "The Brangelina Project" or an option on the gross receipts of their next movie. I'm not claiming that those rags are lillywhite. For example: I know for a fact that reviews are sold for cash. However, in my opinion that's not the same level of corruption then a "journalist" covering a company in which he has equity.