Posted on 07/11/2009 1:56:30 PM PDT by abb
The Washington Post's ill-fated plan to sell sponsorships of off-the-record "salons" was an ethical lapse of monumental proportions.
Publisher Katharine Weymouth and Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli have now taken full responsibility for what was envisioned as a series of 11 intimate dinners to discuss public policy issues. 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. Promotional materials said Weymouth, Brauchli and at least one Post reporter would serve as "Hosts and Discussion Leaders" for an evening of spirited but civil dialogue.
While Brauchli and Weymouth say they should have realized long ago that the plan was flawed, internal e-mails and interviews show questions about ethics were raised with both of them months ago. They also show that blame runs deeper. Beneath Brauchli and Weymouth, three of the most senior newsroom managers received an e-mail with details of the plan.
Lower down, others inside and outside the newsroom were aware that sponsored events would involve news personnel in off-the-record settings, although they lacked details. Several now say they didn't speak up because they assumed top managers would eventually ensure that traditional ethics boundaries would not be breached.
Neither Weymouth nor Brauchli can recall anyone raising concerns, although both say they wish someone had.
They were all aboard a fast-moving vehicle that, over a period of months, roared through ethics stop signs and plowed into a brick wall.
The crash occurred July 2, when Politico.com disclosed details of a Post flier seeking underwriters for the first dinner to be held July 21 at Weymouth's District residence. The damage was predictable and extensive, with charges of hypocrisy against a newspaper that owes much of its fame to exposing influence peddlers...
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Who were these lawmakers, administration officials, think tank experts, business leaders and heads of associations? What was their cut going to be?
Sounds like an influence prostitution ring to me, with WaPo as the pimp.
In the article he refers to a Style-book - ( "rule book") Within that is a code of ethics - an ethical system newspapers might want to standardized across the industry. And they need to explain to their readers - and in the case of the Washington Post - their owners.
Okrent was the master of this - and the New York Times let him go... Maybe the Washington Post should offer him a job. (their loss)
In the article he refers to a Style-book - ( "rule book") Within that is a code of ethics - an ethical system newspapers might want to standardized across the industry. And they need to explain those ethics to their readers - and in the case of the Washington Post - the owners.
Okrent was the master of this - and the New York Times let him go... Maybe the Washington Post should offer him a job. (their loss)
I don't think this was ever confined to Chicago. See the slurs and Calumny hurled at Washington, Adams, Jefferson, J Q Adams, Jackson, Lincoln, Garfield, etc, etc, etc.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/11/AR2009071101822.html
Big media seek 21st century business models
Right, I see...so Nancy Ann Min De Parle, White House Czarina of Health, had absolutely nothing to do with Kaiser Permanente “underwriting” the dinners...
That line came from this interview. The State-Run Media loves to throw it out from time to time. Quite fitting, don’t you think?
http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/nixonview.html
United States v. Nixon (1974)
Nixon’s Views on Presidential Power:
Excerpts from an Interview with David Frost
The following is an excerpt from an interview with former President Nixon conducted by David Frost. It aired on television on May 19, 1977.
FROST: “So what in a sense, you’re saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.”
NIXON: “Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.”
FROST: “By definition.”
NIXON: “Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president’s decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they’re in an impossible position.”
I suspect it is very similar to how Janet Reno took full responsibility for Waco . . .
for finding a way to shove this all under the carpet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.