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.

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!

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?

“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’…

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.

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.

(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.

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.

Ask Dan Froomkin what the rewards are at the Post for doing that.

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).

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.)