Why Is the Post Sorry Now?

I'm at a loss over the fuss about the aborted Washington Post salons. It seems to be taking place in a parallel universe that's totally unfamiliar to me.

In my world, politicians and lobbyists who are successful have symbiotic relationships. They regularly visit to discuss how to advance shared goals. This upsets goo-goos who think that only they should enjoy such links to legislators, but there's little they can do about it except fume, which they've become quite expert at.

The media is constantly trying to take the measure of the lobbyist-legislator relationship,but has links of its own to both sides that allow it to report the process. It floats trial balloons suggesting the Senate Finance Committee may lower the boom on non-profit hospitals and then reports on the devastation the hospitals claim would result.

Any interest group that's a serious player in the process has ongoing links to legislators with power over their industry, irrespective of how supportive those politicians may be. Access trumps ignorant enmity. So it's a given that any serious player in the health reform debate or their agent can quickly get to any senior legislator making the decisions or their agent.

Such contacts may ultimately be reported in the media. Many go unreported, either because the participants view them as private or the media view them as uninteresting. These conversations would continue at the same pace, with only a slightly different structure perhaps, if the media simply disappeared.

A good health reporter at a good newspaper like the Washington Post knows all the serious players in the current debate and talks with them regularly. Which raises, for me, at least, the question as to what harm would be done if the Post staged a fund-raising dinner of its own where the interest groups involved continued their ongoing conversations in the publisher's dining room.

One could argue that they'd be renting a venue that they otherwise have free access to, but the cost would be quite modest and could be written off as a public relations expense.

If the reporters and editors involved were good, they'd meet no one and encounter no argument they weren't already familiar with. And if they weren't good, they'd hardly be worth the time and dollars invested by the paid guests at the event.

So it seems that the Post was proposing to make a little extra money by imposing a modest transaction cost on a process that already occurs. If good desserts were served, the salons could be seen as icing on the political cake.

What's the problem with that?

Comments

[RobRokoli]

Ergo, the Washington Post diversifies, adding to its portfolio a conference center specializing in offering access to its senior editors and reporters for a lofty fee. Naturally, given the history and tradition of the ethics of journalism common folk never would have reason to suppose that the Post, its editors and reporters might show preference if not outright bias toward the customers who support the newspaper in its lucrative new venture. Thus the fairness of the Post's reporting never would come into question and nobody would take the false impression that the integrity of the Post was for sale. That might work well in a truly Utopian world. In a Utopian world, people equally would have no reason to say, I don't mind if the police hack my computer or tap my phone. I have nothing to hide.

[LizM]

This salon business is a mere distraction and just another example of the true incompetence and ineptitude that run rampant through the Washington Post, not to mention other media outlets and most of the blogosphere.

Check this out!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/posts-krauthammer-pushes_b_229409.html

[LizM]

Actually, what I wrote there was not exactly what I meant to say...the salon story is a distraction FROM the incompetence and eptitude...etc etc... :)