Soccer Dad

"Monumental" "lapse"

The Washington Post's ombudsman, Andrew Alexander does some digging and discovers that the Post's publisher and editor have been somewhat less than forthright about the Post's proposed "salons."

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.

I guess what bothers me most about Alexander's reporting, is his emphasis on just one problem of the salons.

Historically at quality newspapers such as The Post, a firewall exists between the business and news departments to ensure editorial integrity and independence. The Post has internal "Standards and Ethics" guidelines that stress the importance of newsroom neutrality.

The first line says: "This newspaper is pledged to avoid conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest, wherever and whenever possible." Later, it states the newspaper "is committed to disclosing to its readers the sources of the information in its stories to the maximum possible extent."

But the salon dinners ran counter to the spirit of both. By having outside underwriters, The Post was effectively charging for access to its newsroom personnel. Reporters or editors could easily be perceived as being in the debt of the sponsors. And by promising participants that their conversations would be private, those attending would be assured a measure of confidentiality that the news department typically opposes.

Frankly this bothers me a lot less than a different aspect and that is the involvement of government officials. The Post was offering to introduce business leaders who had concerns about new government policies with government officials. First of all this is problematic in that it suggests that the Post has close ties with members of the administration.

"Spirited bu civil" - as the salons were described - suggests that those coming would not be coming to question the wisdom of the government's plans or propose alternatives , but rather, perhaps, to find out how to comply in the least costly fashion.

This also set up a potential arrangement for government officials to find post-government employment in the private sector. By bringing together administration officials who might be implementing policies that would affect industries, these officials become potential recruits for businesses that would need someone who could help navigate new business requirements.

Ed Morrissey focuses on a different aspect of the scandal - influence peddling.

This gives media organizations carte blanche to act as an influence-laundering middleman. If lobbyists can't buy government officials fancy dinners any longer, why not just pay Katharine Weymouth to do it for them? Throwing in journalists is like the cherry on a pandering sundae. The new EO makes media organizations and non-profits the easy channel for influence peddling.

Jennifer Rubin emphasizes the dishonesty of the Post's leadership. (both via memeorandum)

Finally, what's a little amusing is Alexander's introductory sentence:

The Washington Post's ill-fated plan to sell sponsorships of off-the-record "salons" was an ethical lapse of monumental proportions.

Can a "lapse" really be "monumental?" Usually lapses are described as "momentary." It looks like Alexander was caught between trying to a systemic failure and trying to pull his punch a little. Andrew Alexander did some real investigative work. And even if his focus was too narrow, he still exposed some disturbing dishonesty at the top his organization.