The Weekly Feed: Experimentation Edition
Morning Roundup: Change Edition
Former Blade Staffers Launch 'DC Agenda'
D.C. Insurance Dept. Denies Birth Control Coverage Meddling
Controversy Over Rhee Now to Include Sex, Congress
Calling it "a planned new venture that went off track," Washington Post Publisher and CEO Katharine Weymouth apologized to readers today after it was revealed that the newspaper had been planning to trade access to journalists and government officials for cash in the form of "Post Salon" dinner events. The salons, widely lambasted as yet another hit to the Washingtonian paper of record's integrity, were canceled mere hours after the plan was exposed by Politico reporter Mike Allen.
Although Weymouth still can't let go of the fact that "the flier was not approved by me or newsroom editors," -- what difference does that make now? -- the Publisher seemed apologetic enough:
As publisher it is my job to ensure that we adhere to standards that are consistent with our integrity as a news organization. Last week, I let you, and the organization, down.[...]
We all make mistakes and hope to be forgiven for them. I apologize to our readers for the mistakes I made in this case.
Weymouth did not, however, completely close the door on similar -- but assumedly non-pay-for-play -- events:
While I do believe there is a legitimate way to hold such events, to the extent that we hold events in the future, large or small, we will review the guidelines for them with The Post's top editors and make sure those guidelines are strictly followed. Further, any conferences or similar events The Post sponsors will be on the record.
The last few months have certainly been turbulent ones for the Post. In addition to this journalistic indiscretion and the depressing economic state of the newspaper industry, the paper has been on the defensive about misinformation in its opinion pages and their messy handling of unwanted blog commenters, among other issues.
So what say you, Washington? Are you satisfied with Weymouth's mea culpa -- or have the Post's recent transgressions led you to irreparably doubt your hometown paper?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
But other media outlets do it, too!
I didn't know about it or authorize it, but some guy in marketing invited a whole bunch of people to MY palatial residence for nibblies and drinks and then dinner! "Surprise!"
Disregard those reports, verified as true, that I sounded out influential people about this from my own email address.
Whatever I say, the guy who wrote the flyer is really to blame for the whole "incident" and his ass his grass.
I don't buy what she's selling. It's not believable that an event could be planned at HER house with HER attending in a couple weeks and she has no idea about this event or it's purpose. She's a busy executive who no doubt would have had to plan this in advance. Never mind there is evidence of invitations to this event coming from her email. She's only damaging the post even more by spinning lies.
Yes, she's full of sh!t and trying to backpedal with b.s. about a renegade marketing exec (and how renegade he was would be interesting to find out...maybe he'll speak after he's canned in 3...2...1...).
What I read was, "While I do believe there is a legitimate way to sell access, to the extent that we sell access in the future, large or small, we will review the guidelines for selling access with The Post's top editors and make sure those guidelines are strictly followed. Further, any selling of access to The Post sponsors will be on the record."
So they will establish arbitrary guidelines, which of course they will adhere to, having set them themselves, and then claim everything's on the up and up because, hey, they stuck to the guidelines, right?
Such crap. Such horsesh!t. The Post gets scooped daily by bloggers, weeklies and radio. No wonder they're floundering.
i already had no respect for the editorial page, by and large, so this doesn't change much...
What's this Washington Post you speak of?
It's a really shitty newspaper that uses the name of a once-proud journalistic institution.