Selling Access to Katharine Weymouth's Dinner Table
8/5/09 10:30 PM
Grasping Reality with Both Hands The Semi-Daily Journal of Economist Brad DeLong: A Fair, Balanced, Reality-Based, and More than Two-Handed Look at the World J. Bradford DeLong, Department of Economics, U.C. Berkeley #3880, Berkeley, CA 94720-3880; 925 708 0467; delong@econ.berkeley.edu.
Support this weblog | About This Website | About Brad DeLong | This Weblog | Weblog RSS feed | Brad DeLong's Egregious Moderation | Order of the Shrill | Office Hours: Evans 601, by appointment, email delong@econ.berkeley.edu | Academic C.V. | John Yoo and the Torture Memo | Audio and Video Read the comment policy: no drive-bys, and if you bring information and humor you will be fine... Smith Economics Group LTD CALL - Leader in Forensic Economics Nationwide Expertise - 312.943.1551 www.SmithEconomics.com
Weblog Home Page Weblog Archives Econ 115: 20th Century Economic History Econ 211: Economic History Seminar Economics Should-Reads Political Economy Should-Reads Politics and Elections Should-Reads Hot on Google Blogsearch Hot on Google Brad DeLong's Egregious Moderation August 01, 2009
Selling Access to Katharine Weymouth's Dinner Table Stan Collender argues that the Washington Post did nothing at all wrong in selling access to Katharine Weymouth's dinner table. As I understand his argument, it was that her grandmother Katharine Graham used to give policy-oriented dinner parties--and there would be two or three bigshot lobbyists there, her friends. Now Katharine Weymouth wants to give the same policy-oriented dinner parties, with the same two or three lobbyists, but charge them $25,000 a seat. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/08/selling-access-to-katharine-weymouths-dinner-table.html
Page 1 of 4
Selling Access to Katharine Weymouth's Dinner Table
8/5/09 10:30 PM
The net impact? Lobbyists takes home $75,000 less. The Washington Post has $75,000 more to spend on its news and opinion coverage. Stan sees this as a net plus--it used to be that lobbyists had to figure out how to flatter Katharine Graham to get a seat at the Post's table, while now they would only have to pony up $25,000 each. This seems, to Stan, a win-win. If I had not seen the Post's miscoverage of the Clinton and Bush administrations, I might be tempted to agree. But the idea that now the lobbyists will be transferring $75,000 so that Fred Hiatt can keep publishing and paying George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and James Wolfowitz and so that Lally Weymouth can continue to run "exclusive" interviews with Bibi Netanyahu in which the word "settlements" does not cross her lips... Those facts mean that I fear Post publisher salons that make money for the organization much more than I fear the oldstyle ones. Stan Collender: The Only Thing The Washington Post Did Wrong Was Apologize: Andrew Alexander, the ombudsman at The Washington Post, had a lengthy and detailed column yesterday about what he termed the "sponsorship scandal" at the paper. His opening line says everything you need to know about where he stands: "The Washington Post's ill-fated plan to sell sponsorships of off-the-record 'salons' was an ethical lapse of monumental proportions." I disagree as strongly as possible. The only thing the Washington Post really did that was wrong is that it apologized. Other news outlets... charge directly for meetings and conferences... [or] charge indirectly, as when they invite advertisers to mingle with senior staff over chardonnay and scallops wrapped in bacon. At least one major publication sponsors cruises where readers pay to mingle for several days with big name conservatives, reporters, and editors. The New York Times proudly arranges for discussions with media and entertainment types and runs full-page ads promoting it. Major Washington-based publications hold seminars hosted by one or more of their crack reporters or editors and get corporate sponsorships to make sure they're profitable. They advertise the fact that their reporters and editors will be speaking because they know that will help draw a paying crowd. And then there are the big Washington dinners where virtually every news outlet buys one or more tables and competes for the biggest names from Capital Hill and the White House to sit with reporters, editors, and... yes... advertisers. (Question: What's the difference between paying $25,000 for an ad and then being invited to sit at a table at a hotel ballroom with editors and congressional leaders, and paying $25,000 to sit at a table in with those same editors and leadership at the publisher's home?)... My bottom line is that The Washington Post didn't do anything wrong. It has assets -- connections and a staff that people want to meet -- that it wasn't using adequately to generate revenues. Why not put them to work and improve the paper's profitability in the process? My question for all those who, like Andrews, have said that what The Post did was unethical, is whether you think the news coverage would have been tainted because of the salons. My strong suspicion is that the answer would be have been an overwhelming "no". And if that's the case, this should not have been an issue and the Post should have moved ahead with the dinners as planned. RECOMMENDED (5.0) by 4 people like you [How? ] You might like:
I Am Using This Quote in a Manner Highly Derogatory to the Associated Press (@this site) WaPo Ombudsman Crushes WaPo’s Journalistic Integrity (@PoliGazette) 2 more recommended posts  Brad DeLong on August 01, 2009 at 11:25 PM in Information: Better Press Corps/Journamalism, Moral Responsibility | Permalink
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/08/selling-access-to-katharine-weymouths-dinner-table.html
Page 2 of 4
Selling Access to Katharine Weymouth's Dinner Table
8/5/09 10:30 PM
TrackBack TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e551f0800388340115715e1d9b970c Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Selling Access to Katharine Weymouth's Dinner Table:
Comments You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post. Logic analogous to Stan's post: "Everyone lies, thus we can conclude lying is moral, so we should lie as much as we want and be proud of it." The fact that there is corruption in Washington and the media doesn't excuse the Post's immoral behavior. That said, I think the claim that "The fact that WaPo has been more of a force of evil than a force of good as of late contributed to people's outrage more than was justified." seems reasonable. As a purely stylistic comment on Stan's post, it seems weird that he sites an anonymous "major publication" in one sentence, then names the New York Times explicitly in the next. Why not name the other publication as well? I know I'm curious to find out which publication is sponsoring cruises with conservatives. Posted by: Patrick | August 02, 2009 at 04:28 AM As one of my professors said 35 years ago. "If you sell your integrity it is very difficult to buy it back." Posted by: save_the_rustbelt | August 02, 2009 at 06:06 AM There are a lot of publications that are paid for by sponsoring organizations including union trade publications, environmental groups, business groups, etc. A WaPo that had truth in advertising, "This newspaper is supported by lobbyists for the wealthy" would be much better than the current WaPo that maintains a fiction of objectivity. Lack of credibility will eventually drive them out of business. Posted by: bakho | August 02, 2009 at 06:54 AM Don't forget mad Michael Gerson! Posted by: Leo | August 02, 2009 at 08:58 AM How can you be so boorish and so heartless as to harp on Katherine valiantly doing whatever it takes to raise money to support poor old Lally (Katherine's mom)? Have you no decency, no family values? Posted by: Bob | August 02, 2009 at 12:35 PM To state that everything in the Wapoop is horseshit is to insult the quality of the leavings of our wonderful equine companions. Even Bullshit is an insult to bulls. There needs to be a better word that describes the quality of the leavings of our press. Preferably a word from the Anglo Saxon. Posted by: dilbert dogbert | August 02, 2009 at 12:56 PM There is also a huge difference between a reporter meeting some lobbyists and meeting some lobbyists who paid enough to fund the reporter's salary for a year in order to meet them. Posted by: Rob | August 02, 2009 at 01:36 PM In my opinion the relationship between the members of the "Fourth Estate" and the members of the ruling class should always be antagonistic, regardless of the party that currently rules. Their job is not to be the friends, but to be the critics of those who hold power.
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/08/selling-access-to-katharine-weymouths-dinner-table.html
Page 3 of 4
Selling Access to Katharine Weymouth's Dinner Table
8/5/09 10:30 PM
In that regard it is incumbent on them to not have conflict of interest, and ideally they would divest themselves from situations where such conflicts arise. As we see this is quite the contrary with Ms. Weymouth here and is exactly what Glenn Greenwald at Salon has been harping on for some time now (you should induct him into the "Order of the Shrill"). Basically the lines that separate the press and the powered interests have been blurred and reporting has suffered (drastically) accordingly. That is, reporters no longer view themselves as outside of the ruling class, but members of it, and now have an inherent wish to protect their place in it. These are not detached "others" to report on, these are their friends, their comrades, their class. In that context, of course they see nothing wrong with what Ms. Weymouth did. Posted by: Matt Fahrner | August 02, 2009 at 06:39 PM Um, Paul Wolfowitz? Or is there another one? Posted by: Jim | August 02, 2009 at 09:36 PM Because nothing is wrong if one makes money doing it. Posted by: Jeffrey Davis | August 03, 2009 at 04:16 AM There used to be a cliche that if more than two people came to a reporter's funeral he or she hadn't been a very good reporter. This, of course, was a long time ago. Posted by: Reader | August 03, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Verify your Comment Previewing your Comment Posted by: | This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted. Post
Edit
Your comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Post another comment The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again. As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments. Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate. Continue
Me:
Economists: Paul Krugman Mark Thoma Cowen and Tabarrok Chinn and Hamilton Brad Setser
Juicebox Mafia: Moral Ezra Klein Philosophers: Matthew Yglesias Hilzoy and Spencer Friends Ackerman Crooked Timber Dana Goldstein of Humanity Dan Froomkin Mark Kleiman and Friends Eric Rauchway and Friends John Holbo and Friends
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/08/selling-access-to-katharine-weymouths-dinner-table.html
Page 4 of 4