Washington Post Ombudsman: Salons "Ethical Lapse Of Monumental Proportions"

Washington Post:

The Washington Post's ill-fated plan to sell sponsorships of off-the-record "salons" was an ethical lapse of monumental proportions.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[Mixpixlix]

Liars! The staff didn' speak up because few will speak truth to power. This has been true for a decades and while companies claim they want "out of the box" employees. Just try it and you'll find yourself out in the street.

Katherine Graham must be spinning in her grave to think her granddaughter was so willing to sell the paper's integrity for a few coins of silver and gold.

We're constantly shown that we live in an era where ethics and morals are relative. No wonder we're spiraling down the drain.

[damilitantone]

Why are people making a fuss over a newspaper no one ever heard of? Oh there used to be a paper with the same name years and years ago, but that news periodical disappeared without a trace. It used to be owned by a lady named Katherine Graham,and a managing editor named Ben Bradlee. It even had reporters by the name of Woodward and Bernstein who broke national stories that affected us all. Sadly they vanished long ago also. So once again I ask, why are they bothering reporting on this rag that nobody reads?

[GeorgeP922]

Katharine Weymouth

[GeorgeP922]

Ok, thats a step, that made it through.

Now let me complete my thought, the folks that follow media, be it left or right will NEVER forgive or forget this ever.

And I doubt that the President has forgotten.

This is a scandle that could bite our administration in the but, it only takes one independent investigator to reach their own conclusions, and at the end of the day, these efforts made it look like the white house was for sale.

Hard for me to feel sorry for a newspaper going down the tubes when it keeps Dana Millbank and Ms Weymouth on staff.

[BabblingBrooks]

Repeal McCain-Feingold!

While at it, repeal the 17th Amendment.

[BabblingBrooks]

There is a piece in the WSJ today which hits the proverbial friction-based metallic fastening implement squarely on its cephalic end:

"This precarious position -- free speech at Congress's discretion -- is not exactly a recipe for a strong and independent press. It's tempting to think that media companies that have called for limits on everyone else's speech will ultimately get what they deserve when Congress gets around to censoring theirs. But that would be a mistake.

The press remains one of the most important bulwarks against tyranny. The solution is to protect free speech on principle, regardless of the identity of the speaker. Banning a corporation from spending its own money for political advocacy is censorship, plain and simple. The sooner the press understands this, the safer its rights -- and ours -- will be."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124744162899229929.html

Should be read by every citizen and newspaper editor and reporter and blogger.

[LeLoup]

"The solution is to protect free speech on principle, regardless of the identity of the speaker. Banning a corporation from spending its own money for political advocacy is censorship, plain and simple."

Non-sequitur deluxe. There are very good reasons why corporations have been limited in what and how much they can spend; society granted them many more means to make money and keep it than what the individual can do.

Now, if corporations are willing to forgo their moral personhood status...we can start to have a reasonable discussion about political spending limits.

[GeorgeP922]

Wow, I was censored for commenting innocently.

I get media protects media, so then why have open comments when you do pieces that cover a terrible scandal and allow free speech which you then crush?

[amdezurik]

because we are just numbers to these guys and not real people?