On Thursday, December 31, the last day of 2009, The Washington Post published an article, presented as a news story, which could be a signal of the death of the Post as an independent and objective news source. The piece, entitled "Support grows for tackling nation's debt," appeared to be one of those background news pieces common in newspapers like the Post. But the article was written not by the newspaper's reporters - and not by an objective wire service, like the Associated Press - but by a new organization called the Fiscal Times, whose founder and major backer, Peter G. Peterson, has a long term ideological commitment to convincing Americans that "support is growing for tackling the nation's debt."
These are indeed hard times for journalism, but the Washington Post is sealing its own fate as a fake news source if, as the press release for the Fiscal Times claims, this new "independent" digital news publication reporting on fiscal, budgetary, health-care and international economics issues has forged its first media partnership, a content sharing agreement with The Washington Post. This deal, the first evidence of which is Thursday's article, is the equivalent of the Post reviving its old relationship with United Press International to cover religion and politics - without informing their readership that since 2000 the once-proud UPI has been owned by News World Communications, a media company owned by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church! The only difference is that Peter G. Peterson is starting his own news service instead of buying an old one.
Economist and media critic Dean Baker was the first to blow the whistle in his Beat the Press blog at The American Prospect website:
The piece [by Fiscal Times and published by the Post] conveys Peterson's view that there is a drastic budget crisis which requires circumventing normal congressional procedures. It implies that the huge surge in deficit in the last year was attributable to the irresponsibility of Congress rather than an economic collapse that resulted from incredibly incompetent policy and Wall Street greed.
The amazing thing is that, given the desire of the new Fiscal Times (and presumably the Post) to present their new partnership as an objective and journalistic endeavor, the actual article is so obviously slanted to the conservative point of view Peter G. Peterson (partner in Wall Street's Blackstone Group and former Republican Treasury Secretary) has used his millions to promote over many years. Nowhere in the "story" would the reader find reference to the fact that it is now official government policy to increase the federal deficit in order to stimulate growth and economic recovery from the worst recession since the great depression. The whole piece seems designed to give prominence to the legislation, advanced by Senators Conrad and Greg, that would create a commission to come up with a plan for slashing deficits which would be voted on - without amendments and with limited debate - by both houses of Congress. No mention is made of the fact that Pete Peterson recently testified in favor of such a commission before Senator Conrad's Budget committee. The piece contains one quote from a high level official at the AARP questioning whether such a commission would be willing to consider progressive tax increases. But nowhere in the Fiscal Times article could a reader find that over 40 national organizations - including the Alliance for Retired Americans, the National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFSCME and the Campaign for America's Future - have circulated a statement opposing such a commission and warning that it could undermine Social Security, Medicare, health care reform, and the fragile economic recovery.
The Fiscal Times piece does quote the "the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform" (funded by Pete Peterson's foundation). And the executive director of the Concord Coalition is quoted as noting rising support for action on the deficit - without noting that one Peter G. Peterson serves as president of the Concord Coalition. This is not journalism. It is big money purchasing a relationship that allows Peterson to put faux news pieces into the Washington Post news pages.
In July, the Washington Post's Ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, admitted that his publisher's "ill-fated plan to sell sponsorships of off-the-record 'salons' was an ethical lapse of monumental proportions." When Katharine Weymouth and Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli realized how horrendous a PR problem they had on their hands, they apologized and rescinded their plans for "a series of 11 intimate dinners to discuss public policy issues - at which for a fee of up to $25,000, underwriters were guaranteed a seat at the table with lawmakers, administration officials, think tank experts, business leaders and the heads of associations." Obviously, the program looked too much like "pay to influence coverage."
But Peter Peterson has found a better way: not content with advocacy, he is using his vast wealth to create a "news service" and forged a deal to get the Post to treat his advocacy as news.
A group of policy experts and advocates, led by author Nancy Altman (and myself) has just sent a letter to Andrew Alexander, who still appears to be the Post's ombudsman. He has another ethical hot potato on his hands - but this one goes to the heart of the journalistic mission of the Post.
Our letter, which can be found here, awaits a response from the Washington Post. If you care about journalism - and if you care about this important Washington newspaper, you should make your views known to the Post at ombudsman@washpost.com.
(Note: I have writen about the proposed budget commission, Peterson and his critics recently at the Huffington Post and TPMcafe and www.oufuture.org)
Follow Roger Hickey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rogerhickey
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/health_science/20100104_Health-care_have-nots.html
Below is an excerpt of my exchange with the editor:
> Cc: Marimow, Bill; Leary, Mike; Jackson, Harold
> Subject: Infomercials in the Inquirer?
> Sirs:
>
> I strenuously object to the placement of the opinion piece titled "Health-care have-nots" within any section of the paper that is supposedly devoted to objective journalism. That is an opinion piece with a paper-thin veneer of reporting, provided to you by an adjunct of a major health care provider with a financial interest in the outcome of the healthcare reform debate. Are you trying to outdo the Washington Post's rental of its pages to Pete Peterson?
On 1/4/2010 4:34 PM, Marimow, Bill wrote:
Dear Mr. *: Thank you very much for your e-mail. As the editor of The Inquirer, I’m ultimately responsible for what we publish, and I take full responsibility for publishing today’s piece from Kaiser. We’re well aware of how the Kaiser Health Service is funded. More importantly, we know first-hand the journalists who staff the news service, and they are some of the most dedicated, experienced and knowledgeable journalists in the profession. Last but not least, we retain the final approval and editing rights for all of their work.
Sincerely,
Bill Marimow
Prompted by your piece, I sent the Post's Ombudsman the following email, titled, “Abdication of journalism at the Post”:
To the Washington Post Ombudsman,
I have been concerned, even alarmed, by many of the recent decisions by the Post. Some I have tried to understand in the context of the pressures of keeping afloat fiscally in hard times for newspapers. Others have been beyond the pale.
I am particularly disgusted by the neocon tilt of the editorial page despite the fact that the neocons have been discredited on almost every issue, especially their disastrous foreign policy ideas. And I'm angered by the imbalance on the op-ed pages where liberal opinions are overwhelmingly outnumbered by conservatives.
Now I'm appalled to learn that the Post has virtually abdicated its role as a leader in journalism by contracting with Pete Peterson's Fiscal Times to publish propaganda pieces as if they were journalistic stories. As this follows the Post's alliance with the Unification Church-owned UPI for "news" on religion, I'm beginning to wonder: what will distinguish the Post from the Washington Times?
As the Washington Times sinks further into debt and fires most of their "news" staff, will the Post sink to the depths of "journalism" the Times has practiced?
An almost lifelong Post reader and subscriber, I still rely on the paper for news in many areas. But I've begun to question whether or not I can assume your articles are factual and objective.
sill rabbits Tricks are for kids
True journalism collects, edits and dispenses the news; it should not be used as a vehicle to create or skew facts. When an individual presents their own opinions as news rather than an editorial piece, it is not only misleading but dishonest to the public for whom they place their trust. A strong democracy is depended upon an independent “Fourth Estate” that is freed of political and ideological influences. When we allow news outlets to create the news rather than report the news, it becomes nothing more than propaganda.
ago. That article comes to the same conclusion for the UK papers as you for the US media.
It begins:
Papers went big on foreign news and story counts were high, but celebrities,
features and columnists were a rare commodity
How did readers know what to think in 1984? Once you get over the minuscule, blurred
pictures and the lack of colour, the first thing that strikes you about the newspapers of that
year is the paucity of opinionated columnists. The finger-jabbing, red-faced anger of today's commentariat, the passionate, omniscient certainty with which they declare opinions,
scarcely existed 25 years ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/may/18/newspaper-industry
The mere fact that they were found out by some other journalists who keep tabs on the various political ideologues out there is good for Internet journalism and the blogs. I quit subscribing to my local newspaper long ago, and I only buy weekend editions at the news stands.
The Internet has long been my favorite place to comb the web, both domestically and internationally, for news. The Washington Post has really become hardup and it's going downhill fast.
What little investigative reporting there is by the Post is basically political "gotcha," not real probing. Dana Priest's Walter Reed series is the last I know of.
'News' is second-hand information, at best. It's the old business of 'consider the source'. If you're lucky, the person writing the article(s) you're reading graduated from journalism school. Press credentials are probably about as easy to fake as religious credentials, and there's no telling what kind of motivation people have for saying various things, and some people are unashamed propagandists for or against this or that. So, reader beware. Never take anything you read as the gospel truth. Ask questions, cross-reference, look for details, accuracy, development of ideas, learn the difference between an opinion piece and traditional reporting, what might be a concealed sales pitch, unprofessional work, flat-out disinformation, that kind of thing. News is supposed to inform us of the events of the day, not tell us how to view things, or shape public opinion, or whatever else might go on in the editor's office. The internet has helped put paid to some media shenanigans, but also opened up the door for private parties to engage in their own. Enjoy!