Washington Post cancels lobbyist event amid uproar

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational 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 ... Full Story »

Posted by Beth Wellington

See All Reviews »

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Review

Member_photo_thumb
3.8
by Beth Wellington - Jul. 2, 2009

It has the flavor of playing gotcha w. a rival, but this piece in Politico highlights the tensions between the news and business sides of the paper. What I find most interesting is that the paper's flier promised that the Executive News Editor would be a host and discussion leader at a July 21 dinner at the home of Publisher and Chief Executive Officer Katharine Weymouth on the topic ""Health-Care Reform: Better or Worse for Americans? The reform and funding debate." The editor, Brauchli, sent the newsroom an email today that such was not the case. Would he have been there id one of the healthcare lobbyists had not shared the flier w. Politico?

I'm w. Ta-Nehisi Coates, writing in the Atlantic, (see link) which I just read after reviewing the Politico article, "The attempt to pass this off as a conference is disingenuous. It is true that news organizations have had to turn to hosting events and creating other revenue streams as advertising dollars have dried up. But those events are generally open to the public, on the record and relatively transparent. Most events charge an entrance fee, but there is vast difference between charging someone $150 to attend a public event as opposed to $25,000 for a private, off-the-record chat over cocktails in Katherine Weymouth's sitting room. The very fact the event is off the record is telling. What kind of news organization would stage an off-the-record event and require its editorial staff to attend? The concept is completely at odds with our mission as journalists."

“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.”

Above is the flier’s language. Since that time the publisher has canceled the dinner. See the next quote

“This should never have happened,” Weymouth told Post media reporter Howard Kurtz. “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."

Either the fliers weren’t vetted and she’s not in control or they were vetted and she doesn’t want to admit it now. Either way, the Post’s publisher appears to be digging a deeper hole.

(9 answers)

Beth's Rating

Overall
3.8

Good
from 9 answers
Quality
4.0
Sourcing
4.0
Context
4.0
Enterprise
4.0
Relevance
4.0
Popularity
3.0
Credibility
3.0
More How our ratings work »