Thomas Frank On WaPo Salons: 'A Moment Of Rare, Piquant Hypocrisy'

Over at the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Frank has weighed in on the way the Washington Post attempted to launch a massive "Hey, Lobbyists, Let's All Get Together At Katherine Weymouth's House And Just Gamely Explore Our Body Cavities For A Few Hours, For Many Tens Of Thousands Of Dollars" Campaign, to boost their sagging profits and to reclaim some degree of relevance among Beltway influence-makers. Frank should give the issue a new bit buoyancy, by refreshing the issue thusly:

Even in Washington, it's unusual to see an actual price tag placed on a chance to "alter the debate," as the Post's flier tastefully put it. Stranger still is it to see the city's scourge of public corruption -- the Post broke the Watergate story and the Walter Reed scandal, among others -- seemingly offering its own good offices for hire.

It was a moment of rare, piquant hypocrisy. Let us take it slow and savor every drop.

To begin with, just think of the functions of righteousness that the Post effectively put up on the block. Here was journalism's zealous guardian of professional rectitude with its hand apparently out for a little bit of baksheesh. Here was the definer of the capital's consensus, the policer of its ideological boundaries, seemingly offering to adjust its vast reserves of Washington wisdom for you if the price was right.

Mr. Frank for the win, if only because I spent an hour searching for a term that captured the precise feel of this arrangement, and was unable to come up with "baksheesh." Let's recognize real game when we see it.

Nevertheless, the real service of Frank's piece is the way he bottom-lines the Post's shift from Beltway business-as-usual to the entire new dimension of whoring that some factotum in the bowels of the paper's "business division" just dreamed up, adding a Google Map to Katherine Weymouth's house:

The Post's own confused relationship with power is also often summarized by reference to dinner parties, in this case the ones given by Ms. Weymouth's grandmother, Katharine Graham. "The great men of Washington, up until the Nixon administration, came regularly to Mrs. Graham's dinner parties, the best ticket in town, and as they socialized over good food and wine, the adversarial role diminished," wrote David Halberstam in his 1979 book, "The Powers That Be." "They were close, they were friends, these were not just men of power, they were men of good will, events were seen as they wanted them seen."

All that was missing, apparently, was a price tag.

Oh well, when the subscription price goes up again, I'm sure we'll all lament the way these soirees could have cheapened the newspaper for everybody.

MORE:
When Newspapers Peddle Influence [Wall Street Journal]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[AngelaQuattrano]

"Baksheesh". Excellent!

[dinglebe]

Let's not forget the principal figure behind this awful mess: Katharine Weymouth. A few things we know about Ms. Weymouth (courtesy of Wikipedia):

* Despite attending Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford Law, failed to make partner at the DC law firm WIlliams & Connolly

* Moved on to the Washington Post general counsel's office. It probably helped that her grandmother, Katherine Graham was chairperson and publisher

* Served as head of advertising

* Named publisher in February 2008

So Ms. Weymouth has zero experience in journalism, some experience in law, and some experience in advertising. All of which add up to what qualifications to serve as publisher of what was once a bellwether newspaper? Oh, that's right - she's family.

Resign, Ms. Weymouth. Save your paper and your family while there is still time.

[orianna]

Campaign reform is vital to the restoration of democracy to America. Reform should include:

1.) No media outside of free media coverage, equally proportioned between candidates.
2.) No opinions on candidates falsely listed as 'news'. Clear disclaimers if opinions.
3.) Limited funds available same to all candidates from their party's collected funds.
4.) All funding sources must be listed (on party web page) anytime their lobbying interests are voted on from the legislatures which were voted into office. i.e, If in favor of a financial bill, you must list all financial institutes which contributed to your party.
5.) Advertise as candidate by C-SPAN public programming only... omits requirement for billions on dollars corporate $$ ads or you're out of the game!
6.) No election ads allowed by outside parties.

Lobby Reform should include:

1.) Designated locations to peddle interests, open to public scrutiny.... press allowed.
2.) Defined categories of lobbyists, i.e. corporate, health, social services, VA, elderly, sick, etc, and each category equal access to congress.... among all the interest levels in US.
3.) Legislatures must list what they do for each group (on party web page).

4.) And, naturally, no money except limited amounts into general party fund.... which must be declared and added to the list of each legislature when they vote benefiting any of the groups.

Add to this list and circulate... let's dialogue on fair and honest political action in government action.

[salmo]

The affair demonstrates how unfit the Washington Post is to perform its role as the 4th estate.

[jbeach]

That's gonna leave a mark.

At least, I hope it does.