“Politico”:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24441.html
For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, non-confrontational access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — 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.” …
“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.” …
The flier says: “Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …
“Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters’ CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders … Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post … An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. … A Washington Post Salon … July 21, 2009 6:30 p.m. …
“Washington Post Salons are extensions of The Washington Post brand of journalistic inquiry into the issues, a unique opportunity for stakeholders to hear and be heard,” the flier says. “At the core is a critical topic of our day. Dinner and a volley of ideas unfold in an evening of intelligent, news-driven and off-the-record conversation. … By bringing together those powerful few in business and policy-making who are forwarding, legislating and reporting on the issues, Washington Post Salons give life to the debate. Be at this nexus of business and policy with your underwriting of Washington Post Salons.”
The Washington Post’s news division seems quite upset at the way that the event was described in the promotional materials, and has now said that it won’t be participating. But this kind of event is not unusual in Washington DC, even if the marketing isn’t usually quite as crass and direct.
{ 15 comments }
Jonquil 07.02.09 at 4:10 pm
Dear God. Just… dear God. And the newsroom may not have been consulted, but you can bet damn sure Brauchli was given a heads-up, even if he didn’t see the final flyer.
Yeah. “We’ll sell you access to power” is a canonical Washington bargain. But when a newspaper, in theory supposed to be impartial, does it, it crosses the line.
(Note: I am well aware that the Post is nothing resembling impartial.)
dsquared 07.02.09 at 4:22 pm
Which bit of this is the outrage bit? Is it that the WP is engaging in influence-peddling, or that there’s an implicit promise of favourable coverage for anyone who comes along to this little “Salon” (hahahaha btw)?
If (as I suspect) the objection is just that it’s all a bit tawdry, then surely the newsroom could help restore that reputation by going out and doing some good news reporting. You could even reach an equilibrium, whereby the news side built goodwill, and the influence-peddling side burned goodwill in order to refine it into money. AFAICS, in that equilibrium, we the average punter do quite well, in that the WP has to provide a decent news service in order to maintain the prestige of being associated with its “Salons” (oh god, please no).
Steve LaBonne 07.02.09 at 4:25 pm
Ask Dan Froomkin what the rewards are at the Post for doing that.
Salient 07.02.09 at 4:25 pm
3 thoughts:
(1) The promise of Obama administration officials’ attendance is unbelievably cavalier. Isn’t it?
(2) The Post’s / Kris Coratti’s response is weirdly noncommittal: “these dinners are… meant to be an independent, policy-oriented event for newsmakers… We do believe there is an opportunity to have a conferences and events business [sic?], and that The Post should be leading these conversations in Washington… The newsroom will participate where appropriate.” Whatever that means.
(3) This too is golden:
“Washington Post Salons are extensions of The Washington Post brand of journalistic inquiry.”
…Indeed.
mpowell 07.02.09 at 4:26 pm
I like that you can get 11 for the price of 10. It’s almost like the stamps you get on your card from your favorite lunch destination…
dsquared 07.02.09 at 4:34 pm
Ask Dan Froomkin what the rewards are at the Post for doing that
Yes, see – if they were thinking straight, they would have kept him on; they could have had well-attended “salons” (oh god, it hurts) filled with people who wanted to complain about him.
The promise of Obama administration officials’ attendance is unbelievably cavalier. Isn’t it
I suspect that this is what the newsroom were really angry about – they were being asked to turn out their contact books to fill up the “Salon” (ow) and were rightly pissed off about it.
Henry 07.02.09 at 4:40 pm
dsquared – the first sounds about right, the second not so much – my vague impression (I live in DC but am not precisely a ‘power player’) is that the people on the publishing and senior editorial executive side of big journalism have fatter rolodexes than the journos themselves.
FMguru 07.02.09 at 5:38 pm
I, for one, am impressed by the “off the record” nature of the meetings. What does it say about the journalistic instincts of an organization that arranges private meetings between the rich and powerful and administration officials with the explicit promise to keep everything secret?
Barry 07.02.09 at 5:56 pm
“What does it say about the journalistic instincts of an organization that arranges private meetings between the rich and powerful and administration officials with the explicit promise to keep everything secret?”
That the building housing the WaPo (or WaPoo, as somebody said after Froomkin was fired) should sport a red light at the entrance, to properly signficy its true business.
mart 07.02.09 at 6:17 pm
I just read this:
“Cities without newspapers seem to experience a sizeable increase in insider self-dealing and other forms of corruption–one theory as to why the Federal government is less corrupt than state and local governments is simply that it’s more thoroughly covered by the press.”
Heh. I guess one could call it the ‘money quote’…
StevenAttewell 07.02.09 at 7:17 pm
Yeah…I’m curious what Obama administration official would be stupid enough to accept an invite to this event before this broke, and which official would be stupid enough to accept an invite now.
Main, talk about MarketingFAIL.
And the Post has been infected by the palm-greasing spirit for some time, it’s just not that they’re getting blatant about it. Ironically, does this count as hard-hitting investigative journalism, uncovering deep-seated corruption within a powerful American institution – completely by accident?
StevenAttewell 07.02.09 at 7:17 pm
* man, not main.
P O'Neill 07.02.09 at 8:53 pm
The Powerpoint presentation for the development of this concept within the Post must be a beauty.
Barry 07.02.09 at 10:13 pm
Yes,
Step 1 – Make quiet arrangements to sell access for money.
Step 2 – Distribute flyers with arrangements spelled out in detail to hundreds
of people in the DC area (which tell people exactly *who* is expecting to mix
alleged journalism and insiderness).
Step 3 – Profit!
Henri Vieuxtemps 07.03.09 at 7:05 am
Make quiet arrangements to sell access for money.
I don’t see how this would amount to selling access or to influence-peddling. If I’m willing to spend $25K, I don’t need anyone’s help to get access, that’s what fundraisers are for. No, I see this as a brilliant and much needed innovation of the archaic political system.
Consider the way things work now: Businessman (B) hires a lobbyist who bribes Politician (P). P then employs Thinktank Demagogue (D) to provide him with rationalizations and talking points. D will have to be compensated by B somehow. Finally, Newspaper-Man (N) is brought in to disseminate the talking points.
In the modern (and very complex) world this business model is clearly inefficient and prone to failure. What if B doesn’t like the news/opinion articles produced by N? That is a clear possibility, because, as it happens, N has no clear contractual obligation; he operates in undignified manner, similar to the guy who volunteers to clean your windshield at a traffic light. All in all, this business model is chaotic, ambiguous, and uncertain.
Bringing everyone involved, all the key participants together in one room, to spec out the final product and negotiate the fees, is the most natural evolutionary step. Yes, it was prevented today, but it’ll happen again tomorrow, because nobody can stop the progress.
Comments on this entry are closed.