Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Could be the recession, or could be that everyone learned the calorie count of the Frappuccino Previous entry: Megan McArdle Needs To Read More Pandagon

Time For Another Blogger Ethics Panel

Media

The Washington Post is selling its access to its own reporters and to Obama administration officials:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational 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.”

The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — is a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

This makes the Dana Milbank/Nico Pitney throwdown doubly (maybe triply!) juicy now - the same newspaper that fired Dan Froomkin for basically being popular and well-read while castigating itself over running too many pictures of things that are happening and letting Milbank get away with running anonymously sourced inaccurate quotes is now revealed to have sold its constitutionally protected access to government officials for the relative bowl of pottage.  It is insinuated (or outright stated) that bloggers are terrible, awful people because we might say mean things on the internet, or we might not actually delete all of our archives to avoid the terrible shame of accountability or maybe say things approving of a candidate who is paying us to say those things, except that we say them (after we’ve clearly broken ties with our private blogs) on campaign websites.

That’s the critical difference between blogs as media watchers and major media itself - as much as big media might like it, bloggers have neither the ability nor the desire to engage in the sort of ethical lapses that are available to outlets like the Washington Post every day.  We may sit in our mothers’ basements watching torrented Thundercats episodes, but we do it honestly.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Jesse Taylor on 11:12 AM • (30) Comments

thunder thunder thunder THUNDER CATS!!!!

Comment #1: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  07/02  at  12:00 PM

I’m reading “All the President’s Men” and crushing on Woodward/Bernstein right now, so this is a major disappointment.

Comment #2: RMJ  on  07/02  at  12:06 PM

“We may sit in our mothers’ basements watching torrented Thundercats episodes”

Who told?!?!
It musta been my kid brother—yeah, he’s the computer geek here, not me.
I wouldn’t know a bit from a byte if they… well, you know…

Comment #3: smartalek  on  07/02  at  12:30 PM

Lately, I’ve been sort of okay with the idea that newspapers might disappear forever. This news isn’t discouraging me from that view.

Comment #4: Auguste  on  07/02  at  12:35 PM

The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters

So in other words, WaPoCo has decided to monetise Sally Quinn’s cocktail parties and allow Beltway outsiders to buy invitations at a hefty price.

Par for the course (at Burning Tree, in this case) during tough economic times, of course. Publishers of all sorts seem to selling off their brand goodwill to keep the lights on. Recently, Elsevier was caught publishing a phony-baloney “peer-reviewed” medical journal on behalf of Merck.

Comment #5: Gracchus.  on  07/02  at  12:40 PM

This morning I was a little sad about newspapers disappearing, b/c they are kinda like the Ed Sullivan Show.  You get a little bit of everything, and can read or not.

My internet reading is a bit more precise, and definitely doesn’t have as much local color.

But this shit?  Is why I don’t look to the papers for facts anymore.  It’s why 74% of the country wants a public option, but Congress, bubbled in by the Beltway, still thinks it’s possible to have ‘healthcare reform’ without it.

World’s changing.  People who actually care about facts and issues blog about them in their free time.  People who are paid to discuss issues follow the corporate line, whether or not it conforms to reality.

Comment #6: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  07/02  at  12:42 PM

Edwards’ presidential campaign had paid bloggers on its staff.

Comment #7: mnsr  on  07/02  at  12:44 PM

Edwards’ presidential campaign had paid bloggers on its staff.

mnsr

ZOMG!!!!
Next thing you know those DAMN DIRTY DEMOCRATS!!! will be hiring reporters to be White House Press Secretaries!

Jeebus, wingnuts can’t even do snark correctly.

But seriously, didn’t anyone notice that in the first episode of Thundercats everyone was neked?

Comment #8: cynickal  on  07/02  at  12:52 PM

We may sit in our mothers’ basements watching torrented Thundercats episodes

And Cheetos! Also.

Comment #9: lostmypassword  on  07/02  at  01:06 PM

Edwards’ presidential campaign had paid bloggers on its staff.

You’re kidding! Being a Pandagon reader, I never would’ve guessed it!

If you think you’re somehow needling Amanda with all this overblown Edwards hate (I can think of no other reason for your obsession), I think you’re wasting your time. In fact, backlash to the shameful way that Edwards was strong-armed by that thug Bill Donohue into ending her role probably did more to drive traffic here than did the actual campaign gig.

Comment #10: Gracchus.  on  07/02  at  01:14 PM

I hope I still have ethics when I make enough money from blogging to have power, oh wait, bloggers don’t make money, LOL

Comment #11: aftercancer  on  07/02  at  01:55 PM

Hypothetical:  Edwards won.

If Amanda were working with several other bloggers and offered up the time and attention of Edwards’ staff,  those bloggers and other key legislative officials to private industry lobbyists/executives for a hefty fee, and then did not disclose that to her readers or the general public, you’d have a good analogy.

Reality:

That never happened, and she disclosed her employment to this blog’s readers and the public at large.  To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, apart from not writing about the presidential campaign or Edwards specifically, that’s pretty much the best you can do.  (We all know why we didn’t get much of a chance to vet her ethical chops.)

I want to know 1) who the administration officials were who (likely) gave some kind of tentative thumbs up to attending these parties. 2) Why it costs $25,000 a head, per “Salon”.  That seems awfully expensive for a party!  I’m wondering if there was supposed to be some kickback to the pols who attended, splitting the fee with the WP. 3) Who thought using the term “underwriting” would do anything *but* ring the alarm bells of anyone with the teensiest bit of scruples.

Has anyone seen anything written about this by the ombudsman?  I went to the WP website but didn’t find a column about it.

Comment #12: deep6  on  07/02  at  01:55 PM

But seriously, didn’t anyone notice that in the first episode of Thundercats everyone was neked?

Lots of people noticed.

Comment #13: NBarnes  on  07/02  at  02:12 PM

What strikes me here is what a pittance they’re asking to sell their soul. The letter says two sponsors max per “salon”, so that’s $50K per dinner party before catering expenses (which are going to be serious if you expect CEOs to come). Unless these things are getting held every week, that’s somewhere under a million dollars a year. Which would be big money for a blogger or a smaller publication, but doesn’t go very far at the Washington Post, and certainly isn’t worth pimping out the CEO for.

Comment #14: paul  on  07/02  at  02:20 PM

I like to think it’s hard for bloggers to have hidden conflicts of interests or agendas.  I mean, we’re bloggers:  We BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH all over the internet like it’s a sickness we’ve no interest in curing. I mean who asked us? If we have conflicts of interest we’re be blogging about them because we can’t shut up.  That’s my theory at least.

Comment #15: The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker  on  07/02  at  03:15 PM

Edwards’ presidential campaign had paid bloggers on its staff.


And your point is ... what, exactly?  I’m not quite sure what the Edwards campaign announcing that they had hired specific bloggers and announcing those bloggers’ names has to do with the Washington Post promising lobbyists that they could meet “off the record” with Washington Post reporters for the right fee.

Is this you claiming again that Clinton’s blowjob meant that Bush was justified in lying us into a multi-trillion-dollar war because a blowjob by an intern and a war with thousands dead and millions injured are, like, totally the exact same thing?

Comment #16: Mnemosyne  on  07/02  at  03:24 PM

Edwards’ presidential campaign had paid bloggers on its staff.

That’s right, MNSR.  It’s the same sort of thing in the way that giving a paycheck to a security guard is the same sort of thing as giving an envelope full of cash to a cop under the table.

Comment #17: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  07/02  at  03:59 PM

We may sit in our mothers’ basements watching torrented Thundercats episodes, but we do it honestly.

We wouldn’t have to even contemplate torrenting our favorite childhood shows in the first place if the companies who own the distribution rights to our beloved childhood shows would get off their asses and sell them to us on DVD already.

Comment #18: stogoe  on  07/02  at  04:07 PM

Media Matters linked to Howard Kurtz’ column today, which wonders if Michelle Obama is getting cut a break by journalists because of her sex and race.  Because everyone remembers the hard-hitting coverage of Laura Bush’s visits to children’s hospitals and the tough questions reporters asked her while she was there, right?

Comment #19: Mnemosyne  on  07/02  at  05:02 PM

The bigger issue here is that the WaPo is facilitating private access for CEO/lobbyists to Administration officials and heavy hitters.  Who at the WH or in Congress is willing to be pimped for $25-250,000?

Comment #20: CParis  on  07/02  at  05:35 PM

We wouldn’t have to even contemplate torrenting our favorite childhood shows in the first place if the companies who own the distribution rights to our beloved childhood shows would get off their asses and sell them to us on DVD already.

And then I could totally blow my UL ratio out of the water by making high quality rips from the DVDs, thus earning me VIP status on the private trackers! Oh wait, that’s not the point is it?

Comment #21: Godless Heathen  on  07/02  at  05:35 PM

All I have to say is my mom’s lemon bars are delicious and Thunder Cats are awesome.

Comment #22: Gozer  on  07/02  at  05:36 PM

I’m reading “All the President’s Men” and crushing on Woodward/Bernstein right now, so this is a major disappointment.

I’m listening to “More Songs About Buildings and Food” right now, and am equally diappointed. :(

Comment #23: rea  on  07/02  at  05:59 PM

The bigger issue here is that the WaPo is facilitating private access for CEO/lobbyists to Administration officials and heavy hitters.  Who at the WH or in Congress is willing to be pimped for $25-250,000?

Maybe they’re not really aware of it. This is already sleazy enough that I can see the WaPo assigning a reporter to set up a lunch interview with the head of the Widget Regulatory Agency, and having him bring along his “friend,” who just happens to be the CEO of Widgets Inc.

Or maybe the WaPo editors and executives will throw those oh-so-exclusive Beltway cocktail parties I mentioned above, with guests divided between the WaPo’s paying clients and the officials and politicians who they’d like to see there. In that case, I wonder if the former are offered full or partial refunds based on the RSVPs of the latter.

It reminds me of those embarrassing win-a-date-with-a-celebrity contests/auctions, or the reverse of those club openings and birthday parties where a celebrity is paid to attend and put up with the hoi polloi for an hour or two.

Comment #24: Gracchus.  on  07/02  at  06:04 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02nuns.html?_r=1&hp;Vatican investigating American nuns for being somewhat useful instead of cloistering themselves in a convent, praying. equivalent of “get back in the kitchen, bitch”.

Comment #25: Stephanie  on  07/02  at  06:11 PM

Ah, <a href=“http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/washington-post-cancels-series-of-salons-charging-lobbyists-for-access-to-its-staff/>the “>:

A plan to have The Washington Post charge lobbyists and trade groups for private access to journalists, which the newspaper canceled Thursday after it was made public by a political Web site, left newsroom employees appalled and drew a sharp rebuke Thursday from the newspaper’s editor.

[...]

Marcus W. Brauchli, executive editor of The Post, reacted quickly and aggressively to the story on Politico. “The language in the flier and the description of the event preclude our participation,” he wrote in a memo sent to his staff Thursday morning. “We will not participate in events where promises are made that in exchange for money The Post will offer access to newsroom personnel or will refrain from confrontational questioning. Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable.”

I guess they have some shame after all, although they’re covering their arses with the usual “overzealous marketing executives sent the flyer out before it was properly vetted.” With the publisher’s name on it?! Yeah, right.

Comment #26: Gracchus.  on  07/02  at  06:21 PM

This isn’t a case of the WaPo ceasing to be a corporate whore.  It’s a case of that particular whore giving up on a new corner because of too much scrutiny.  Rest assured, worried readers, that particular prostitute is still turning tricks for big money, just behind firmly closed doors again.

Comment #27: seeker6079  on  07/02  at  07:47 PM

Did you know that reporters from non-profit news outlets are ineligible for press passes on Capitol Hill? The powers that be say that they’re keeping the non-profits out because their organizations might be secretly subsidized by lobbyists. Whereas, if you make a half-assed effort to sell access to lobbyists at a profit, you’re golden. God bless America!

Comment #28: Lindsay Beyerstein  on  07/02  at  09:42 PM

All non-profits? So you mean, like the CSM and the St Pete Times can’t get press passes?

Comment #29: paul  on  07/03  at  04:35 PM

Professional ambition trumps journalistic ethics in every medium.

Comment #30: mnsr  on  07/06  at  04:13 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.