According to Allen's story, "For $25,000 to $250,000, TheWashington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few" -- Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper's own reporters and editors. The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it's a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its "health care reporting and editorial staff." The offer -- which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters -- is a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival. And it's a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.''
The paper's editor, Marcus Brauchli, responded by sending a memo to all Post employees saying that the language in the flier advertising the pay-for-play event precluded participation by anyone in the newsroom. (Duh.):
Colleagues,
A flyer was distributed this week offering an "underwriting opportunity" for a dinner on health-care reform, in which the news department had been asked to participate.
The language in the flyer and the description of the event preclude our participation.
We will not participate in events where promises are made that in exchange for money The Post will offer access to newsroom personnel or will refrain from confrontational questioning. Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable.
There is a long tradition of news organizations hosting conferences and events, and we believe The Post, including the newsroom, can do these things in ways that are consistent with our values.
Marcus
Disclosures: My husband works at the Post, as do half of the people I know. Weymouth is a pal of my boss, and the granddaughter of the late Kay Graham, who did so much to make the paper great that I can't help hoping she doesn't know about this in the hereafter.
Update: In a phone interview, Brauchli said he only learned of the flier and the plan described in it on Wednesday night, when he got a call from Politico seeking comment. "The business side got somewhat carried away in the description of what we would be doing, and put that in the flier.'' Somewhat? An "appalled'' Brauchli went on to say that "the newsroom will not participate in this dinner or any other event structured like this.'' He declined to comment on Weymouth's involvement in putting out the flier or her understanding of the event, and she has not responded to an email seeking comment.
"It's unfortunate that this was printed and distributed,'' Brauchli said. "That somebody thought this was possible reflects an inadequate understanding of what we do.'' Asked how the newsroom had responded to the story, he said, "The newsroom, like me, was astonished this was considered.''
Obama officials offered up for auction seem to have been similarly unaware of the plan, according to White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. At Thursday's White House briefing, Gibbs was asked whether anyone from the White House had been "invited to attend these Washington Post salons that were reported this morning? And what is the White House's official policy on members of the administration doing things like this, regardless of who sponsors them?'' Gibbs responded, "Right. Well, I don't know if anybody here was. I think some people in the administration writ large may have been invited. I do not believe, based on what I've been able to check, that anybody has accepted the invitations. Obviously, the counsel would have to review an invitation like this, and I think it would likely exceed what the counsel would be -- the -- what the -- the -- what -- the salon that The Washington Post is offering would likely exceed what the counsel would feel in this case would be appropriate.''
So, the Post was offering access it didn't even have?
Update II: A memo from Weymouth just went out to Post employees, explaining that the company's marketing minions were to blame. (Do I believe her? I want to; to believe otherwise is to think that she somehow grew up in her family without learning a single thing about journalism ethics -- and thought she wouldn't be caught. But what marketing exec would have the nerve to put out the word that Weymouth was charging up to $250,000 for access to officials at a dinner in her own home without running that plan past her?)
Update III: Weymouth told Howard Kurtz, the media writer for her newspaper, that she would not be holding any off-the-record salons after all. And again, she blamed underlings for hyping the event in ways she hadn't signed off on. "Absolutely, I'm disappointed," Weymouth told Kurtz. "This should never have happened. The fliers got out and weren't vetted. They didn't represent at all what we were attempting to do. We're not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom."
Only, dinners in her home that charge lobbyists to break bread with officials and reporters would by definition impugn the paper's integrity.
The Kurtz piece goes on to say that "Two Post executives familiar with the planning, who declined to be identified discussing internal planning, said the fliers appear to be the product of overzealous marketing executives. The fliers were overseen by Charles Pelton, a Post executive hired this year as a conference organizer. He was not immediately available for comment....Weymouth knew of the plans to host small dinners at her home and to charge lobbying and trade organizations for participation. But, one of the executives said, she believed that there would be multiple sponsors, to minimize any appearance of charging for access.''
It breaks my heart to say this -- I mean, this is my husband's boss we're talking about -- but it sounds to me like what Pelton is really in trouble for is truth in advertising; no matter how many sponsors or what the dollar amount, the trade is the same: cash for access.
Make it stop: An update of the Kurtz piece says that the "fliers were approved by a top Post marketing executive, Charles Pelton, who said it was "a big mistake" on his part and that he had done so "without vetting it with the newsroom." He said that Kaiser Permanente had orally agreed to pay $25,000 to sponsor a July 21 health-care dinner at Weymouth's Northwest Washington home, and that Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) had agreed to be a guest. Pelton, who serves as general manager for conferences and events, said he had invited two-dozen business executives, advocates and presidential health adviser Nancy-Ann DeParle, but a White House spokeswoman said no senior administration officials had agreed to attend.''
OK, so Pelton falls on his sword, answering nothing. (Nancy-Ann DeParle is married to Jason DeParle of the New York Times; what was her understanding of this event? I find it hard to believe she knew the deal and agreed.) This is just as serious a breach of trust as Janet Cooke's Pulitzer-winning way-back-when fabrications, people. And an independent investigation is an absolute must, for one thing because the paper's incredibly hard-working reporters and editors -- you know, those people who worry about whether they'll have a job tomorrow, and still give it their all while refusing so much as a cup of coffee from a source? -- yes, those folks deserve to know how in God's name this could have happened.
Katharine Weymouth/exec/TWP
07/02/2009 02:45 PM
To
cc
Subject
Message from the Publisher
All:
You will have seen this morning a story in Politico and now widely picked up that we were planning a series of salon dinners. A flyer went out that was prepared by the Marketing department and was never vetted by me or by the newsroom. Had it been, the flyer would have been immediately killed, because it completely misrepresented what we were trying to do.
I do not normally respond to stories but this one has created enough of a stir that I wanted to take the time to reaffirm our commitment, first and foremost, to our journalism and our integrity. There is nothing more important and no amount of money that would cause us to jeopardize that. We are always looking for new revenue streams but we will pursue only avenues that uphold our high standards of journalism.
We were planning to do a series of dinners and had requested newsroom participation 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.
We do believe that there is a viable way to expand our expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what we do - cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in Washington. And we will begin to do live events in ways that enhance our reputation and in no way call into question our integrity.
Melinda Henneberger is the editor-in-chief of PoliticsDaily.com. She spent 10 years as a reporter for the New York Times, in the paper’s Washington and Rome bureaus... more
Where are the proceeds of this event to go? Which "Obama administration officials" are getting a cut? I hope this story is further investigated.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (6)
cruisedoc
2:19PM Jul 2nd 2009
Good question. This doesn't surprise me. Journalism as ethical reporting is dead. It's more like political advertizing for Obama.....so they almost might as well sell ads. The Obama maniacs (those blind supporters) only hear one side, the glossy side. I'm a dem, and I'm outraged. It's a disservice because these people will be shocked when they see the other side. They will be shocked when their taxes skyrocket, their elec. bills double, and their family members die from cancer while waiting for treatment. Many of these youngsters are paying $1 more per pack of cigarettes and don't even realize this is an Obama tax - so much for "not one dime of tax increases for the middle class". Wait until they try to sell their house and find they have to spend thousands to bring it up to Obama's green standards. Wait until they try to find a job only to find that companies have moved to where taxes are lower and their is no Cap & Trade tax. They really aren't getting both sides of the issues, and this is dangerous.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (4)
Imabeliever
2:23PM Jul 2nd 2009
I lost my job a few months ago, as many of us are now. I was devastated, how was I going to support my family? I read about the eBay Success System in Entrepreneur magazine and they even had a link ( http://tr.im/EbaySuccessSystem ) to get a free kit explaining how to make money that way. I found out that over 720,000 Americans are making a living on EBAY right now. I am one of them now. Now you can do that too. I can tell you that I'm already making as much money as I did on my job and I'm working less time than I used to spend commuting. Beat the economic depression and get your free kit today. http://tr.im/EbaySuccessSystem
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-6)
cazsue
2:53PM Jul 2nd 2009
Fox News just won an appeal to be able to fire staff who refuse to report stories that they know are lies! They fired her, and appealed and appealed until the court allowed them to knowingly lie on air. Imagine if that had been any other news network, what the right wing would say, but as long as it's their hate speech, no problem, I guess.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-1)
luckysunday22
2:57PM Jul 2nd 2009
Does this really surprize anyone? The people that read the Washington Post won't believe it anyway, and the people that believe that journalism is rigged will just add this to the enourmous pile of evidence that the major state run news organizations not only slant left but actually actively participate in making the news.
So like I said, No surprize here, just another news day.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (4)
lbubbainc
3:22PM Jul 2nd 2009
This story will be on page 47 tomarrow and then killed forever. Somebody really slipped up when they released this one. They must have thought that it was the Washington Times, not the Post.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (4)
howd17
3:29PM Jul 2nd 2009
You reveal your bias in your question, and illustrate what's wrong in our current political discourse.
This article says nothing about Obama officials getting any money or anything. It's about the newspaper trying to make money for itself. In fact, the article points out that, while White House officials often participate in such things, they were totally unaware that lobbyists were being asked to pay in exchange for the paper facilitating meetings.
Furthermore, the offer applied to "members of congress" also, but I notice you don't call for the investigation of any Republican members of congress who could be "on the take."
Having said that, this is extremely disturbing for The Washington Post. I hope it IS investigated, but not for the shallow political purposes you imply.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
lodgebrook
7:04PM Jul 2nd 2009
Isn't a simalir deal being provided to Car Dealerships via Congressmen . . . Barney Frank to name one!?
Understand an ORDERED CLOSED DEALERSHIP got DeLISTED by doing an END RUN on the Car Manufactures Nationalization Team!?
Could / IS, this the reason "THEY" want to take away the American Citizens rights to gun ownership! Then ONLY the Criminals and their Bosses will be armed!
C. J.. Pauli, Brookline, MA02446
RATE THIS COMMENT: (6)
T
11:57AM Jul 2nd 2009
Imagine if the Post sold lobbyists access to the Bush administration? The NYT and the rest of the liberal media establishment would be up in arms. I doubt this even makes the network news. If there was ever a shadow of a doubt that the media was in bed with the administration, this clears that issue right up. Shameless and unprofessional. This is why papers are dying off. I'll never buy the Post again, even if I'm in dire need of a poorly edited crossword puzzle to do whilst riding the Metro.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (6)
cazsue
2:43PM Jul 2nd 2009
They did do this in the Bush administration, and there was a lot less coverage than this story - the MYTH of a Liberal media from the constant repetition of that lie.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-2)
T
11:58AM Jul 2nd 2009
Presstitutes!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (6)
POWELL
1:16PM Jul 2nd 2009
Presstitutes? Very, very good and to the point. Let's also refer to Ms. Weymouth, from this point on, as Madame Katherine Weymouth. The White House will remain a house of ill repute, of course. The Washington Post? Sorry, I got nothin'.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (6)
gmlgop
4:53PM Jul 2nd 2009
HEY, MY NEW CATCH WORD. ACCURATE YET SNARKY, I LOVE IT! THANKS!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (6)
Nancy
12:01PM Jul 2nd 2009
Why investigate something that is the norm for WDC?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (1)
susan duggin
12:03PM Jul 2nd 2009
This is disgusing and disturbing. How can this organization "report" news when they engage in this sort of activity. More pandering to the Obama administration ... reporting the news does not exist for them anymore. They just want to shape and influence the news. Selling access however, is a new low.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (6)
dajt57
12:06PM Jul 2nd 2009
this is a deeply troubling story. the last administration did it and there wasnt much of an outcry. i hope that changes now.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-2)
T
12:10PM Jul 2nd 2009
Source of this accusation? I don't recall seeing anything in the news about the WaPo selling off-the-record meetings with senior Bush administration officals. I read a lot of news and am also fairly certain this would have been all over the papers and cable news. Or are you just here astroturfing for Axelrod?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (1)
Steve
12:56PM Jul 2nd 2009
can you name any names or is that the plan just say that bush did it too so makes it all right..... unbelievable!!