Washington Post Apologizes for Exclusive Access
Katharine Weymouth, WaPo Publisher
I held off at first writing something about this story when it first broke last week, primarily to see how it would unfold. There was something about the story that seemed to ring so true about the Post today even though what the paper did was so astonishingly bone-headed.
The Washington Post sent out an invitation to lobbyists and power brokers in Washington to meet at the mansion of publisher Katharine Weymouth for exclusive access with key journalists at the Post … for a price, a big price. The fee ranged from $25,000 for one meeting to $250,000 for a series. It was a lobbyist’s dream come true and confirmed for the rest of us that the Post was compromising the credibility of the newspaper by peddling insider access to reporters and editors.
Such a scheme broke every rule and code of ethical conduct in journalism. It also reveals an incredible lack of savviness and accountability at the Post about how to manage an organization’s image and reputation.
At the first, Weymouth and others at the Post denied the report. Then, they blamed it on some new member of the Post’s marketing department. But, I ask you … do you actually believe that some new person in the marketing department would unilaterally send out an invitation for a reception at the publisher’s mansion? I don’t think so.
Now, the Post has come clean and apologized for appearing to sell access to its news media trust. Here’s a link to The New York Times.
Weymouth has now canceled the exclusive receptions at her house which she at first denied knowledge of. She is the granddaughter of Katharine Graham, an icon in the American newspaper business. Weymouth is not a journalist but had worked at the Post’s advertising department in the past.
Here’s the real issue – Weymouth and her crowd at the Post know little about journalism and the news business. They are either the children of real journalists who inherited their jobs or pals in the Washington socialite crowd. And, the Post today reflects their parochial and special interest perspective.
It’s my feeling that this bunch is driving the Post into an oblivion of disrespect, as I wrote earlier this year. At a time when America’s newspaper industry is on the ropes and struggling to stay alive, the Post has become its own worst enemy and has betrayed the public trust.
Filed Under: Featured • News Media
About the Author: David is a veteran communications strategist ... writer ... blogger ... online publisher ... and Emmy Award winning former CBS Network News correspondent. He lives in the Washington, D. C., area, and works worldwide.
That just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
What happened to integrity? Is it as a result of some kind of desperation in these tough economic times?
Wow that is seriously bad. And it doesn’t look like ‘they get the wrong that they just did’ or ‘its impact in regards to the organization’s relationship/responsibility in regards to what they claim to be (professional journalists) with the public.’ Only that they got caught and their prior attempts to avoid bad press didn’t work.
well according to me its more about the credibility than the integrity..thank you for sharing this with us..
I was appalled when I read about this on Media Bistro. And was even more appalled when I read her apology letter to the readers where it said:
“I want to apologize for a planned new venture that went off track and for any cause we may have given you to doubt our independence and integrity. A flier distributed last week suggested that we were selling access to power brokers in Washington through dinners that were to take place at my home. The flier was not approved by me or newsroom editors, and it did not accurately reflect what we had in mind.”
How could she not know about dinners that were planned at her own home?!
I haven’t read the NYT article.
David,
Again you have brought to light a subject I am compelled to comment upon.
It has always been the Web 1.0 mainstream media’s mantra that bloggers were:
1. Not responsible journalists
2. Did not check facts to a story
3. Were less talented writers
4. Were information thieves
5. Had special interests not in the public’s best interests
Bloggers have always supported “transparency” in communication. Newspapers and journalists at these newspapers only had their “credibility” to dangle in front of our faces representing the flag of legitimacy.
Now we all know the truth as long suspected. Anyone with deep pockets can buy a story in one of this country’s largest newspapers or tap into unreleased information for their own manipulation.
This is a pretty sad indictment of the levels some people will stoop to in order to further their “cause” and can only add fuel to the raging “Is print dead?” debate.
@Dean: While I agree with your point that media has often looked down upon bloggers,I’d disagree that bloggers have always supported transparency. The good ones do; but many do not. They hide paid posts, sponsorships, don’t always check facts and go for sensationalism.
This isn’t all bloggers; but there are many that are just as guilty of the WP’s crime as there are transparent bloggers. This needs to improve as well before blogging can hope for overall acceptance amongst “peers and contemporaries”.
[...] that it’s been done before, the Post screwed up by getting caught. For its violation of the public trust, David Henderson said the Post “broke every rule and code of ethical conduct in [...]
[...] legendary newspaper woman Katharine Graham. Just a month ago, Weymouth got caught up in a another scandal of major proportions in a scheme to sell exclusive access to Post reporters for lobbyists and power [...]
[...] legendary newspaper woman Katharine Graham. Just a month ago, Weymouth got caught up in a another scandal of major proportions in a scheme to sell exclusive access to Post reporters for lobbyists and power [...]