Cash for canapes
Updated on 03 July 2009
Charging for access to public officials? What a disgrace. And inside the Beltway there's been no greater scourge of sleaze, no greater champion of integrity, than the Washington Post. Until now...
The august paper managed to get itself embroiled in what its own ombudsman described as a 'public relations disaster'.
The entire newsroom has been left in uproar after revelations that the Post's publisher tried to sell access to its own journalists to lobbyists willing to pay up to a quarter of a million dollars.
It must have sounded like such an attractive idea to the cash-strapped Post, which lost around $19.5m in the first quarter of the year - and faces worse to come.
So on 21 July, an "intimate and exclusive" salon was to be held, hosted by publisher Katharine Weymouth, packed to the brim with Washington's great and good. As the invitation put it: "Bring your organisation's CEO... literally to the table. Interact with key Obama Administration and Congressional leaders ... and at first, even the paper's own reporters and editors. Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting at the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it."
A top marketing executive at the paper, Charles Pelton said the company Kaiser Permanante had 'orally agreed' to sponsor this initial event, entitled "Heath Care Reform, Better or Worse for Americans", to the tune of $25,000. Howard Kurtz, writing in the Post, says that Democrat Rep Jim Cooper was one of the guests, with administration's Nancy-Ann DeParle and Kathleen Sibelius also invited.
Companies were exhorted to underwrite a series of 11 salons for a bargain $250,000. As the story broke on the Politico website yesterday, the Post's executive editor Marcus Brauchli could hardly contain his horror. "You cannot buy access to a Washington Post journalist," he insisted - declaring he was "appalled" by the whole plan.
The salon scheme was hastily abandoned with almost indecent speed. Katharine Weymouth claimed the fliers "had got out and weren't vetted", blaming the whole sorry episode on the fall-guy marketing chief. Brauchli told Politico it was "absolutely impossible" that any Post journalists would have agreed to take part in such an event.
Congressman Cooper's aide told the Post he would never have gone along to such a "radioative" event. "You don't want to be put in a position... where someone's buying access to you." Nancy DeParle denied getting any kind of invitation. The White House said Sibelius hadn't decided whether to attend.
The White House counsel Greg Craig rushed to remind staff that they were not allowed to accept free tickets or invitations to what are known as WAGs - or widely attended gatherings - without prior approval. In an internal email, he stressed: "Federal ethics rules restricting the acceptance of gifts govern your ability to accept free admission to events put on by a non-governmental sponsor."
But what a sorry day for the Washington Post. Instead of "dinner and a volley of ideas... in an evening of intelligent, news driven, and off the record conversation", it's ended up with the sheer embarassment and shame that its own publisher seemed willing to put the paper's very integrity up for sale.
Katharine Weymouth apologised to staff in an email yesterday, but maintained that she still thought "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".
Of course dinner parties and cocktail chatter will remain the lifeblood of this most political of cities - and newspapers and magazines do legitimately sponsor conferences and discussion events all the time.
But making a fast buck out of giving corporate interests special access to journalists and policy makers, at an "intimate and exclusive" dinner? Nothing could be less in keeping with the Post's own ethics code. The first rule of good journalism? Write the headlines. Don't end up making them, for all the wrong reasons.
