The Hell to Principle!

When we think of the Washington Post, we accord it a special place in journalism's

pantheon of great newspapers. Who can ever forget the role it played in exposing the Watergate scandal? But what now, what now are we to think of the Post that almost has sunk into the muck of selling its reputation as one of the nation's premier watchdogs?

You know the story if you've read all the newspapers, seen all the cable networks and blogs or any other conveyors of news and gossip. For a tab of $25,000 or more, the Post was planning to invite lobbyists and trade groups to attend private, off-the-record dinner parties at the home of its publisher. If the sponsors could drum up a party of 11, the cost would be $250,000. That would have given the attendees the opportunity to break bread, not only with Katherine Weymouth, but also other Post journalists, members of the Obama Administration and of Congress.

Ms. Weymouth claims to be appalled by the project that allegedly was dreamed up by a recently-hired marketing specialist who ought to be fired before the end of the day. There's no doubt that the publisher's late grandmother, Katherine Graham, would have turned over in her grave had she been exposed to such an enterprise. The first of these questionable dinners that would have focused on a discussion of health care issues was scheduled for July 21. Fortunately, it has been cancelled. But no doubt, knowing how cumbersome bureaucracies work, had the project not been leaked in advance, it would have gone forward. It has raised another more important aspect of ethics that has aroused the understandable ire of the Washington Post newsroom. The reason is obvious. Like baseball players who two or three decades ago began to demand cash payments for their autographs, it would not have been long before the invitees to the Weymouth soirees demanded payments from Post reporters for the right to interview their clients. That would be only one more step into the sink hole that has ensnared journalism.

Comments

[caphillprof]

You can write about journalism You can write about the Washington Post. But you can't write about both of the in the same sentence.

[RabidRightRebel]

Greed is no substitute for integrity!

Despite what all the business pundits say un-restricted greed is not good for society. While short term profits may be benefit the day traders and stock speculators they seldom benefit long term shareholders. Only once we return of a culture which respects an honest day's work will we be able to once again lead the world.

[larry278]

The meltdown of 9/15/08 made it official; nobody trusts anybody now. That means that nobody can even tell you what integrity means or will notice integrity if it were to appear. There are no jobs in America which require an honest day's work anymore. The jobs which once used an honest day's work have gone overseas. What you call a culture no longer exists, RabidRightRebel. As for leading the world, that takes capital. The USA no longer has any financial or moral capital. The USA is broke, that= no money or stock in trade. Nobody trusts the USA any longer. Integrity is based on a mutual, shared trust among those engaged in an activity.
Greed as an incentive doesn't work now. It is impossible to go back to the time when what you call integrity was a factor in business or government. The illusion you call integrity no longer exists. In short, no-one trusts anyone else.

[tompoe]

The record of corporate media these last nine years has wiped out any reputation newspapers in America might have built up. Would you really believe what is written in WashPost or NYT, today? AP and Reuters are determined to establish all content as a commodity independent of its truthfulness. A lie is worth the same as truth. Unnamed "officials" are intended to lend credibility to articles, yet do just the opposite. When Weymouth says she's appalled, it's laughable. She and the rest of the staff need to be run out of town on a rail.