But for a good cause:
Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was cancelling 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…”
“You cannot buy access to a Washington Post journalist,” (Executive Editor Marcus) Brauchli told POLITICO. Brauchli was named on the flier as one of the salon’s “Hosts and Discussion Leaders…”
(Regarding) future events, Brauchli said: “I would hope that everybody in the Washington Post Company is always sensitive to the importance of the newsroom’s integrity and independence.”
Yes, and everyone outside the company, too.
The party line is that the business staff got out ahead of the editors, although – since the fete was to be held in Katharine Weymouth’s personal residence – on has to wonder how far out in front they were.
In other news, the jobless rate is now at 9.5% after an unexpectedly high 467,000 new jobs were lost in June. NPR purported to find light at the end of the tunnel, saying that the number of unemployment applications was slowing. I seem to recall during the dot-com bust of 2002 that similar news was greeted with skepticism, journalists wondering whether the rate of decline was actually good news, or whether it meant that more job seekers had become disillusioned and dropped out of the market for new work.
No skepticism here, though. All changed, changed utterly.
As revenues drop, the traditonal “wall” between the newsroom and business side of newspapers is disappearing. At my former paper, upper management recently told news staffers to think of ways news coverage could help sell ads. That’s something unheard of in my previous 30 years in the newsroom.
Wapo went south with the demise of the Washington Star imho…
You don’t know how disgusted I am by this. It speaks volumes of the arrogance of the Washington Pack-o’lies – and of the cupidity of the Democrat Party.
Glad we put $800B on the credit card — it is working so well.
On the WaPo issue — I’ve subscribed on my Kindle for about three months now. It is not what I expected — more mainstream than I had expected in the news reporting. Editorials are off the chart, so I just don’t go there (like I watch Morning Joe, but would go back on the waterboard before I’d watch MSNBC after 6 PM). It also appears they are backing away from this “salon” idea.
Scott/
MSNBC post 6pm? HA! Whatever happened to the old “know your enemy” dictum?
I know, I know, as much as I love to watch ‘em just to wait for foaming at the mouth time, I have my limits too–if Roberto “hands of stone” Duran can be beaten into submission and forced to say “no mas” in N.O. before my very eyes, who am I to say I’m a better man? It takes a “vast quantities” of something or another to sit thru Ed Schultz, Chris, “K.O” and our “gal” Rachel in succession.
And it tells you something when Ed, despite his blustering, over-the-top frenetic delivery style, is probably the most reasonable one of the lot, (along with Jerry Springer* on Air America, for chrissake–of all people, who’d have ever thought?) and has people on occasionally who hold an opposite pov.
*(When he and Air America were on in N.O.–they no longer are–RIP.)
If I might quote the Washington Post, “The president called randomly on three audience members. All turned out to be members of groups with close ties to his administration: the Service Employees International Union, Health Care for America Now, and Organizing for America, which is a part of the Democratic National Committee. White House officials said that was a coincidence.”
I’m guessing the coincidence was that they were called upon randomly, probably due to a teleprompter glitch. When even Helen Thomas is torqued because The Press can’t maintain the appearance of neutrality, the mutual admiration society is falling apart.
– Max
When I was in DC the rule was don’t do anything you wouldn’t want to see on the front page of the Washington Post. I guess the Post needs a rule of thumb: Don’t do anything you wouldn’t want to see posted on a blog.
I like that the blame here lies not with the setting up of the “salons” but rather that someone down in marketing didn’t clear the flyer with senior management. As well as the big flaw was the flyer said a maximum of two supporters when they really wanted a minimum of two groups paying them for access.
Notice all the media hysteria about who were the White House “Officials”, who authorized them to attend, and what was the quid pro quo that allowed the Post to “guarantee” access to them?
Me neither.
The “watchdogs” are comfortably snoozing at their master’s feet in the White House, along with Bo. I hope they enjoy a lifetime of unemployed leisure as a reward for selling their integrity so eagerly.
“sensitive to the importance of the newsroom’s integrity and independence”
It was really hard to stop laughing long enough to type this. I mean seriously, who can look at that statement and not laugh, Integrity and independence my a**.
Gmac,
You rightly point out an obvious misquote; happens often these days — even in the WaPo (or should I say especially in the WaPo?).
The actual quote should read:
(Regarding) future events, Brauchli said: “I would hope that everybody in the Washington Post Company is always sensitive to the importance of the newsroom’s ingenuity and interdependence with the White House.”
Now, doesn’t that make more sense?
I thought so.