Washington Post sorry after sale of political dinners turns sour
Readers and journalists protest over newspaper's bid to profit from lobbyists
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
Newspapers prefer to report the news, not generate it, and few more so than the Washington Post. But the publication which broke the Watergate story, which is in dire financial circumstances, has found itself in the middle of a very uncomfortable scandal entirely of its own making – and all because somebody upstairs had a (batty) brainwave to help mitigate the red ink.
As a result, Katharine Weymouth, the Post's publisher since early last year, is truly in the dog house with readers and her own reporters. It was her marketing department who dreamt up a series of 11 dinners at her house at which – for a large fee – lobbyists and members of industry associations could break bread with politicians, aides in the Barack Obama administration as well as key members of her reporting staff to mull tricky issues of the day.
Upon learning of the scheme, from the pages of politico.com, the Post newsroom by all accounts went bananas. True, other well known media brands, including The Economist and The New Yorker, regularly organise panel discussions and other gatherings involving their reporters for which participants can be charged. But generally speaking, these are on-the-record, public events. Not so the "exclusive" Weymouth dinners.
When Politico blew the whistle, brochures for the first dinner, to have focused on healthcare reform, had already been circulated and some invitations emailed. The hope was that at least one industry participant, and maybe several, would fork out $25,000 (£15,600) to sponsor the dinner: a useful sum of money given that the Post company lost a record $19.5m in the first quarter of this year.
"Bring your organisation's CEO or executive director literally to the table," the brochures excitedly suggested. "Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders. Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it."
Except that there won't be any dinners. "I want to apologise for a planned new venture that went off track," Ms Weymouth said in a letter to readers, "and for any cause we may have given you to doubt our independence and integrity".
Weymouth, the granddaughter of legendary Post publisher Katharine Graham, has never worked in a newsroom, a fact that has not necessarily endeared her to her employees in the current circumstances.
The paper's website announced an internal investigation into how such an idea was ever even considered. Meanwhile, the paper's executive editor, Marcus Brauchli, and its CEO, Donald Graham, are spending this week meeting with small groups of reporters to assure them the whole thing was a mistake. "We should be in the business of shining bright lights on dark corners, not creating the dark corners," Mr Brauchli said.
"I thought it was helpful," a veteran political reporter at the paper, Dan Balz, said of the newsroom huddles. "I thought they were forthcoming in trying to explain how it happened. I think everyone still has questions about how this collective breakdown occurred."
It could be argued, of course, that this is a very American brouhaha. Virtually from birth, reporters in the US are drilled with a rigid code of ethics and objectivity that can get in the way of informative and – heaven forefend – stimulating journalism. Lobbyists invited to these dinners would have been paying partly for access to the reporters, and some – presumably including those behind the idea at the Post – would say that the reporters could benefit as well. But even the slightest suggestion of a conflict is anathema in serious journalistic circles in the US.
The New York Times, engaged in its own struggle to divine new sources of revenue in an increasingly disastrous business environment, actually opined that the revelations at the Post were a "grievous wound" to its reputation.
"It sort of pits the newspaper's loyalty to its entire audience against the loyalty of a handful of people who have a lot of money and access," explained Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute, a respected journalism think tank. "We can't allow our desperate need to make money to undermine our core credibility."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
It's too bad this collective sense of ethics and objectivity was nowhere to be found when Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons were spreading their lies about weapons of mass destruction. Even when Colin Powell gave his ridiculous speech to the UN, which was enough to confirm to the doubters among us that there could not possibly be any WMDs, the US press exclaimed in unison how powerfully Mr Powell had made the case and that there could now be no doubt.
The US press is utterly controlled by the corporate interests that own it. How ironic that The Independent, which does manage to live up to its name on many issues (the Iraq war being one of them) should further this myth of the ethical American reporter.
Who on earth are you trying to kid!!!!!!!!!!!!
WastingtonDC: Poetic justice delayed, is justice, none the less. It is perfect, for those of us praying for safe returns for our beloved family or friends rotating into and out of combat in Iraq, to read the ?dying truth? about the Wastington Post?s long suspected sale of those ?barrels full? of the tenets of journalism, long abandoned at the doors of it?s editorial offices. Now, albeit too long delayed, we can see the flyer with advertised prices at which those antiquated ideals were offered, finally transparently listed, on the same internet page with ?Washington Post Profit falls 77% in 4th Qtr?. The last time I thrilled to news of the US MSM, which has not, as this article proves, been main stream, during my lifetime, and is no longer rightly the media, given that those of us disposed to peruse a dozen or two papers daily are rarely willing to burden ourselves, or our land fills with disposal of the dead trees, ink, and transportation costs, was the day I sold my -ZHOMB NYT $10 Jan 17, 2010 Puts for over 600 percent profit. I made the bet and have written about it, with great pleasure, as the NYT stock declined from $53 on Jun 20, 02, to just over $3.44 on Feb 20 this year, to emphasize that the fall of NYT stock, like last year?s reported dismissal of some 14,000 persons formerly employed as journalists may well be taken, in the same vein, as this remarkable revelation of the truth of the Wastington Post?s bargain sale of it?s vast store of the tenets of journalism abandoned by it?s liberal workers. The American Republic is all about ?liberty and justice for all? meaning all humans, everywhere found, and there is a majority of tough minded sovereign citizens, from every party, faction, social origin, and all of our magnificent peoples of every race, creed, or color, who will dig out their uniforms, muster as ordered, and go and fight to preserve the last bastion of liberty on earth, or lift another nation?s enslaved peoples out of slavery, anywhere, anytime they are honored with that opportunity, to stand up for American ideals. Since people who work hard and do right, with their pens, or other combat tools, and show up when it is time to free another enslaved nation?s peoples from slavery also tend to come home and lead our nation, and or our churches, businesses, and other organizations, gaining wealth, and the leisure to read a dozen papers daily, after the wars are won, the wholesale peddling of American decline, and talking down our economy, and the value of ?liberty and justice for all?, by any business firm is at last, being rightly rewarded with less sales, less power, and less employment for the talking heads, or writers, who make those mistaken arguments, in print, on television, or on the web. It is time America?s readers, and writers, seeing all sides of every issue on the web, put their money where their sovereign citizen?s unruly hearts abide. We will not pay for biased newspapers, or for bundled television packets filled with insulting drivel that could not be sold to any sapient being, but meets some special interest?s bent, and is thus included in fixed broadcast packets, to poison our youth, our paid voters, and our national conversation. The internet is not killing the NYT, BG, and WP, it is freeing up the conversation, and allowing all sides of any issue to be printed, without the censored approach apparent in those papers, where this comment would never see the light of day, simply because it is not of the liberal bent. The censored liberal rags are killing themselves, while English language newspapers worldwide, http://www.aldaily.com, print both sides of any issue, including any commentary that is not too obscene, and let freedom ring. The liberal 97% of the 14,000 newly unemployed persons formerly called journalists, equals some 13,580 folks more suited to flipping burgers at McDonalds, or steaming out their trash cans. At least, employed there, there would be almost no risk of their liberal bent destroying America, the last bastion of liberty on earth, or returning hundreds of millions of humans to slavery in Russia, the Levant, or China, by biased reportage, Good Riddance!