Time for a Blogger Ethics Panel
(cc photo by krossbow)
As traditional business models collapse, more and more prestigious media outlets are trying to find innovative ways to cash in. The Atlantic, where I was working last summer, now earns a substantial amount of revenue by having its writing staff serve as entertainment for hyper-wealthy summer vacationers at the annual Aspen Ideas Festival. And the New Yorker, I know, now stages a lot of “events” where I guess people pay money to see New Yorker writers speak in person. This mostly strikes me as clever and unobjectionable, a smart way of adapting, but you can always wind up stumbling into awkward territory:
For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off the record, non-confrontational access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors.
The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health-care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it’s a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.” [...]
“Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate,” says the one-page flier. “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 …
In my experience, editorial staff really don’t like being asked to participate in this sort of thing, but with the economics of the business being what they are it’s not clear that anyone really has any choice.
36 Responses to “Time for a Blogger Ethics Panel”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
Probably the most blatantly sleazy move in the history of journalism.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:54 am
“it’s not clear that anyone really has any choice”
What happened to ‘agency’ Mr. BA in Philosophy?
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:57 am
It couldn’t happen to a more deserving newspaper.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 am
When your primary asset is credibility, blatantly selling access seems like not a great way to cash in. Honestly, though, they shouldn’t have cancelled the thing — most of the damage is done, and people will henceforth assume that the paper is selling access through some other, less odious channel. At least this way they could have captured some of the short-term benefits.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:04 am
How much does the Washington Post charge for a blowjob performed by Dana Milbank?
And is it true the Dana sliced blogger Nico Pitney’s face with a razor blade the other day?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 am
Probably the most blatantly sleazy move in the history of journalism.
Not even close. Journalists are a lot sleazier than you give them credit for.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 am
I mean, when even a LOBBYIST finds the Washington Post’s behavior sleazy, that kinda tells you something.
Maybe we can ask former Washington Post blogger/media critic Dan Froomkin what kind of Pimp he thinks Fred Hiatt is:
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/laffaire_froomkin_as_told_by_f.php
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 am
The WaPo is a malign news organization for reasons that I’ve never been able to make sense of.
I mean, I understand why NewsCorp is malign – Murdoch has built a highly successful empire out of telling the right what they want to hear. I understand why GE is malign – they use their news arm to help benefit the rest of their conglomerate in dealings with the government.
But WaPo? I don’t get it. They’ve been a malign news org for decades, and I don’t see what’s in it for them.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:29 am
Concerning:
So that’s why Andrew Sullivan suddenly decided to do Aspen! He doesn’t seem the type. I gather that it isn’t his thing after all. Just as well that he didn’t take his mountain bike!
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:39 am
Blogger Ethics Panel? The influence peddling was done by an established newspaper, not bloggers. The Fourth Estate is a bloody joke.
The Obama team already linked to the Brunswick Group’s Business Forward to sell high priced access to White House insiders.
http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2009/03/white-house-supports-brunswick-groups.html
Did WaPo partner with Brunswick or were they doing their own thing?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:48 am
So who are the administrative and congressional participants supposed to be in this prostitution ring? When it comes to the hacks from the Post the insurance lobbyists can pretty much bank on getting the milk for free, so if they are paying for anything it’s access to the other team.
That is some comically-desperate whoring though. Simply hilarious. Are they going to fire the genius that came up with that sales pitch, or do they only fire for competence?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:50 am
Re Emrys at 9: “So that’s why Andrew Sullivan suddenly decided to do Aspen! He doesn’t seem the type. I gather that it isn’t his thing after all.”
—————
Hmmm. His symptoms sound remarkably like the effect an unacclimated person gets sucking on a joint at 8000 feet altitude.
Telluride is even ..er.. higher at 8,750 feet.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
What I don’t get is, what’s in it for “key Obama Administration and Congressional leaders?” The Post isn’t that powerful. Did they know they were being turned out in Lally Weymouth’s salon?
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Sorry, that’s Katharine Weymouth’s salon.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
You’ve got to admire the truth in advertising:
Can’t argue with that.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
most of the damage is done, and people will henceforth assume that the paper is selling access through some other, less
odiouspublic channel.Fixed.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
yuck; worse than that Miller lady
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Meanwhile it cost Wal-Mart $500,000 to have CAP do shill for the company on healthcare (and hurt its competitors’ bottom lines).
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Based on an internal email I’ve been shown
You guys need to be more careful. If I can figure out who at the Washington Post might being showing you internal email, I suspect management at the Post can, too.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Did no one find odd the offer to give access to government officials for a fee? I myself don’t really see a problem with events featuring writers. (Of course, some people argue that you shouldn’t pay to read them either, much less to listen to them, but that’s another argument.) But paying for access to the administration is major sleaze.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
The problem here is the Post is trying to force their way in as middleman.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
The “not properly vetted” flyer was approved by an executive, Charles Pelton. Does Mr. Pelton have a pay for performance plan?
WaPo was looking for new revenue sources and targeted the big D.C. product of influence peddling. Red “K Street,” Blue “Business Forward,” and Christian “C Street.”
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Petey Says:
“But WaPo? I don’t get it. They’ve been a malign news org for decades, and I don’t see what’s in it for them.”
Katherine Grahm (Graham?) had a saying a few decades back, that the press had a responsibility to the government to keep secrets. The owners and upper mgmt at WaPoo have been in bed with the elites of the country for decades now. Watergate is best viewed as an aberration, like a Scalia decision which actually supports civil rights.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Having attended more conferences than I care to remember as a consequence of my employment, I can’t quite understand why people would actually pay their own money to hear a bunch of writers jabber on.
Really, I can’t imagine a whole lot of things more boring than that. If the Washington Post was going to skin lobbyists for a quarter-million a pop for that sort of thing, more power to ‘em. A fool and his money …
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
From here on out, please note the number of dollars your employer receives from a corporate sponsor when “reporting” on that sponsor and related activities. How do you spell corporate hack? Y-G-L…
It’s easy to find other’s short comings. Jesus, man have some integrity.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Calling Helen Thomas…oh the tangled web ‘they’ weave…
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
What the Post should do is sell the space on its op ed page. Hell, why not just sell the space for news stories too. In other words give up the pretense under which so much of their work is buried. Cece’s work for the Bush campaign in 2000 was almost priceless and they didn’t make a dime out of it. Judy Millers work pathetic work for the NY Times was obviously put forward to advance some principal, which we can only guess at, but that doesn’t pay the bills does it.When it gets right down to it they are chumps.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
They don’t already?
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
What the Post should do is sell the space on its op ed page.
Too late.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Let’s not forget Howard Kurtz’ loving article in April about The Atlantic dinners, which look exactly like the Post Salons. He even lists the journalists participating and I wonder whether they were paid a stipend or an appearance fee? Because when I was a lobbyist invited to participate in another lobbying firm’s activities, I was always offered a hefty stipend. I turned all such events down and that is why I am poor. Do you take stipends Matthew?
“Among those in regular attendance are David Brooks and Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Gene Robinson and Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post, NBC’s David Gregory, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, PBS’s Gwen Ifill, the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, Vanity Fair’s Todd Purdum, former Time managing editor Walter Isaacson and staffers from Bradley’s Atlantic and National Journal, including Ron Brownstein, Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/27/AR2009042700891.html
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
If I were a writer for the Washington Post, I’d give serious consideration to quitting in order to protect my credibility.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
[...] Matt Y [...]
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Twenty years ago, I was offered stipends to participate in these types of events. Are these journalists also taking stipends to participate? Why else would one listen to what a corporate lobbyist is saying when they can just as well send you their arguments in a white paper and you add it to your research pile?
Is Andrew Sullivan getting paid extra to attend the Aspen festival which he says he hates?
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Set aside the lobbying issue, which is clearly wrong. What’s wrong with a journalist being paid to participate in a discussion at something like the Aspen Festival? Journalists get paid to write, and the money that pays them comes from advertisers. Why is appearing on a panel not payworthy, while writing a column is?
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Like Ezra Klein says today in the Washington Post, these things change the way you approach issues, and that’s a problem for journalistic integrity. And it didn’t used to be done. But listen, I think Matthew is great. My assumption of the reason why he left The Atlantic is because he was constrained by its management in what he could write. I’m sure he is not happy that CAP is now taking all sorts of crazy money, like from Wal-Mart and the Israeli settlement people, which now may also constrain what he can write.
I never took that kind of money on top of my job, which probably explains why I am poor. Pure, but poor. For example, if you are paid a substantial stipend to participate in an event sponsored by Goldman Sachs, you are probably not going to turn right around and write a story about their corporate crimes, not soon after anyway, because these people have just paid you. David Broder of the Washington Post recently had to explain himself when he got caught for just this kind of unethical behavior. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is why he left the employ of the Post and went on contract.
If these guys are taking stipends for corporate-sponsored events, they should disclose those facts so that we judge their objectivity accordingly. And if they are taking stipends, I hope they’re getting RICH for compromising their integrity.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:44 am
This sure makes the Pitney thing seem petty…and hypocritical.