News for Sale

Co-authored with Josh Stearns

Thursday morning, Politico reported that the Washington Post was offering lobbyists "off-the-record, non-confrontational" access to the paper's own reporters and editors for a whopping fee of $25,000 to $250,000.

According to Politico's Mike Allen, a promotional flier for the first "Washington Post Salon," focusing on health care, promised lobbyists an "exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done." In addition to access to reporters and editors, the paper promised to hand-deliver Obama administration officials and members of Congress to any lobbyist willing to pay for access.

But within moments after news of the promotion hit social networks and blogs, the Post canceled the plan.

Experiment Gone Awry

"This should never have happened," Katharine Weymouth, publisher of the Post, said in an article on the paper's site. "The fliers got out and weren't vetted. They didn't represent at all what we were attempting to do. We're not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom."

The crisis in journalism has sparked unparalleled experimentation and innovation from new and old newsrooms alike. But this kind of "pay-for-access" model should be a non-starter in newsrooms, and it's good that some in leadership at the Post acted swiftly to shut down the ill-advised scheme.

With the advent of the 24-hour news cycle and an unprecedented drive to maximize profits at media conglomerates, we have seen too many examples of news organizations forgoing their independence in exchange for a place in the halls of power.

These Washington Post salons would have taken this one step further, auctioning off its access to corporate lobbyists.

If held, this kind of an event would have been an outrageous violation of journalistic standards.

Selling Integrity for Access

Journalism is in crisis around the country. The economic downturn has collided with fundamental technological, cultural and ideological changes, leaving the future of news in doubt.

But selling access to reporters and editors to the highest bidder should never be an option.

The backlash against the Post was swift, spread by outraged members of social networks -- whose anger was fueled in part by marketing materials that seemed blind to the inherent conflicts of interest in this model. The promotional flier for the salons said that these events "are extensions of The Washington Post brand of journalistic inquiry into the issues, a unique opportunity for stakeholders to hear and be heard."

In full damage control, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli took up the issue of journalistic ethics in the Post's follow-up, saying, "We do not offer access to the newsroom for money. We just are not in that business." He went on to say that the newsroom was never involved in this plan, nor would it have taken part in such an event.

Yet, the fact that this idea got as far as it did is another example of how Big Media tend to put corporate profits before the public interest. The notion of holding these events suggests that for the Post, the real stakeholders in the health care debate seemed to be lobbyists and the companies they represent, not the American people whom the Post is supposed to inform, educate and represent.

Comforting the Comfortable?

It's telling that throughout the flier, the Post reassures corporate representatives that the conversation will be non-confrontational -- there will be no afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted here.

The irony of this whole debacle is that journalists and policy makers ought to be getting in the same room more often. But we need them to be working together in search of policy solutions to the crisis in journalism and to ensure that our communities get the information they need -- not to trade influence and cash for their contacts.

For more on policy solutions to the crisis in journalism, download Free Press' report Saving the News: Toward a National Journalism Strategy.

Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr

Comments

[william2205020]

Ms. Weymouth seems to be apolgizing for getting caught not for influence peddling...

[william2205020]

I can't speak for everyone in the US but I'm getting fed up and disgusted with the level of greed, corruption and dishonesty not only in our governments but in the population as a whole. We dont teach morality in schools any longer and parents seem to be teaching their children to get whatever they can anyway they can...what a terrible future we craft for our children...

[urweatherman]

I am not surprised....how do you think the last election was won? Exactly! Thank you very much!

[polarcap2]

they are just hopping on board the train to Fawn - along with CNN, MSNBC, CBS & NBC - a motley collection of tingly-legged so-called reporters

[JFD8]

An exclusive salon at The Post!
Circulate with the publisher-host
And the powers that be
If you'll pay a huge fee
(And if word ever leaks this is toast!)

News Short n' Sweet by JFD8
http://twitter.com/JFD8

[pfrogger]

no surprise here.
I'm just surprised it was reported on. these kind of deals happen all the time but we don't hear about them regularly.
when employees of one mega conglomerate meet with employees of another mega conglomerate, that's called networking. these people aren't journalists.
all the real journalists quit or were fired.

[itolduso]

More & more I keep hearing how "journalist's need access" to powerful people, and I'm a little confused...maybe it's because I remember a time when 'powerful people' were the ones courting journalists.... when being the subject of a 'news' story usually meant only one of two things...a person did something very, very good.... or they did something very, very bad. ( or in the case of an elected official, they did nothing) Back then, the news journalist reported what people actually did , as opposed to today...when the majority of our 'news' stories are merely transcripts of what the powerful want us to believe....gossip, propaganda, opinion, & adverts...this is what "access" gets us.

[itolduso]

Darn, I lost my bet. I bet that most newspapers in America would bury this story on page 6 (under the joint pill ads) but my local McClatchy paper didn't print it at all- it must not be 'news'.

[InofTouch]

Cost money to do good reporting

[audadvnc]

Looks like the journalistic profession is taking a page from the world's oldest profession. Maybe they should hold their little seances in one of those Tokyo love hotels ...

[rain39]

And newspapers wonder why fewer and fewer people consider them essential or praiseworthy any more. This Exhibit # 1 for July for the Washington Post. Froomkin was #1 for June. Too bad such a good paper had to fall so far and owned by Katherine Graham's grand daughter to boot! You're right, she is spinning in her grave.

"An evening with the RIGHT people can alter the debate". Now I am spinning. These Washington people need to get their butts out of the District once in a while and learn how unimportant they are really are. Yuck!! Glad they were busted.

[josephXY]

How right you are. Meantime it is clear that it is a sin, a grave to take the media all too seriously.
It's better to take a break, less stress with all those changes happening in that sector.

[Bill777]

Yes, had the event occurred it certainly would run the risk of impugning the paper's integrity. Journalism in general, however, has to walk such a tricky line. On the one hand journalists need access to powerful people, and that access is very rarely simply given and so some wheeling and dealing is required, but on the other hand working so near the powers-that-be is basically a recipe for corruption. There are some great interviews with top journalists about issues influencing the future of journalism at http://www.ourblook.com/component/option,com_sectionex/Itemid,200076/id,8/view,category/#catid69 which I have found useful.

[Rogan]

It takes smarts, to walk that line you speak of. Woodward's books on the Bush White House are a classroom worthy example of how it's done when it's done absolutely right.

[JosephP]

This is simply outrageous!

From reading the flyer, there is no doubt about what was intended:

"Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate...Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth...Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders."

And now these weak denials from CEO Katharine Weymouth (granddaughter of the great Katharine Graham, who must be spinning in her grave today):

"This should never have happened...The fliers got out and weren't vetted. They didn't represent at all what we were attempting to do."

What shouldn't have happened, Ms. Weymouth? That the event was even considered in the first place, or that the flyers went out and were not vetted? Because I have to disagree with you---the flyers very clearly represent what you were attempting to do. I think that's the whole problem.

And who, exactly, were the fine Obama officials that were being offered to those organization CEOs and executive directors? Is the Post so in bed with government officials that they think it is OK to pimp them out over at Ms. Weymouth's place?

From the tone of Ms. Weymouth's denials, I fear that the only lesson that the Post has learned is next time to be more careful about who they let know about their influence peddling.