The Washington Post Doesn't Get it

From an NYT update on the Washington Post scandal I wrote about:

The publisher of The Washington Post apologized to the paper’s readers on Sunday after a controversy erupted over the company’s plans to organize sponsored meetings that would include Washington lobbyists, government officials and the paper’s own journalists.

The Post canceled the first of what it billed as exclusive “salons” at the home of the publisher, Katharine Weymouth, after critics accused the paper of seeking to profit from its access to members of Congress and administration officials.

Ms. Weymouth, in a letter to readers that appeared on the opinion page Sunday, wrote that “firm parameters” had not been followed in planning the events. These included having reporters and editors participate as moderators and not setting any limits on what questions they can ask.

“Our mistake was to suggest that we would hold and participate in an off-the-record dinner with journalists and power-brokers paid for by a sponsor,” she wrote.

No, Katharine, you didn't err by suggesting that you might do these things, as though you were planning something innocent and people got the wrong idea. You intentionally and consciously planned to sell access to your reporters- reporters who are supposed to be independent and adversarial. You got caught. Your newspaper is so much a part of the Washington political scene that you probably didn't even realize how obviously wrong this is, but that is not an excuse- that's a symptom of the problem. And to drive home that point,

She added that if The Post were to hold any such event, “everything would be at arm’s length — sponsors would have no control over the content of the discussions, and no special access to our journalists.”

"Arm's length?" What does that even mean?

"No special access to our journalists?" They should not be offering access to their journalists at all. Period.

So we are supposed to believe that lobbyist will pay tens of thousands of dollars to meet reporters, but, after cocktails and a long conversation by the pool about health care reform and defense contracting, these reporters will erase all memories of personal contact and go out and write stories about these people and what they do without being affected at all?

And keep in mind that this is giving them the benefit of the doubt, which they've clearly not earned. I can't think of any reason why we shouldn't assumer that The Post has made a deal whereby these lobbyists are promised favorable stories in return for cash.

Because that sure is what this looks like.

The Marketing Firm of Washington, Post and Weymouth

The Washington Post has been forced to cancel an event amid widespread criticism. Politico.com has the full story here; and below are some highlights:

******************

Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive "salon" at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.".......

Weymouth said the paper had planned a series of dinners with participation from the newsroom “but with parameters such that we did not in any way compromise our integrity. Sponsorship of events, like advertising in the newspaper, must be at arm's length and cannot imply control over the content or access to our journalists. At this juncture, we will not be holding the planned July dinner and we will not hold salon dinners involving the newsroom. “

"Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," says the one-page flier. "Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. ... Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders."

****************

Just to make this clear, what the Washington Post was trying to do here was to hold an event where lobbyists would pay large sums of money to be allowed to attend a party where they could talk to reporters and editors of the paper.

In other words, reporters and editors, who are supposed to report objectively on and remain independent of the people whom they are covering, are accepting money from those people instead, and when caught, are claiming that they would not have allowed this to affect their reporting!

I'm sure this would have been news to the health insurance industry lobbyists who were supposed to pony up a quarter of a million dollars apiece for the chance to convince a Post reporter that the health of their customers is their number one priority, and that a public option will result in us all dying.

I honestly do not know how anyone could trust anything published by the Post at this point. They obviously have no integrity. They were literally planning to act as a marketing firm. I think Dan Froomkin might have quit at this point anyway.