So, it appears they entertained ideas to host , well lobbyists meet and greets? Interesting , is this something a newspaper, an ‘objective’ neutral mechanism of free speech is supposed to be doing? And the 25k-250k per head, were would the excess money go, to whom, ALL to wapo?


Washington Post sells access, White House denies involvement
By: Bill Myers and Kiki Ryan
Washington Examiner
July 2, 2009

The Washington Post has long prided itself on its access to the capital's elite. Now, it appears, the paper is willing to sell that access.

In a flier circulated to Beltway lobbyists, the Post touted a "salon" program which gives "exclusive access" to "Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds" for between $25,000 and $250,000. (View an image of the flier.)

White House officials said privately Thursday that the administration had no idea that the Post was peddling access to its officials.

The first event, entitled "Health-Care Reform: Better or Worse for Americans" is scheduled for July 21, at the home of Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth.

"Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No," the flier states. "The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it."

The flier, first reported by former Post editor Mike Allen on the Politico web site, offers the chance to "hear and be heard as an equal with key policy-makers and other stakeholders," including Weymouth, Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli and health-care "reporting and editorial staff members" at the Post.

Post company spokeswoman Kris Coratti issued a statement Thursday morning claiming that the flier was a "draft" that hadn't been "properly vetted" before being dispatched.

"As written, the newsroom could not participate in an event like this," Coratti's statement said. "We do believe there is an opportunity to have a conferences and events business and that the Post should be leading these conversations in Washington, big or small, while maintaining journalistic integrity. The newsroom will participate where appropriate."

Washington Independent columnist David Weigel posted an e-mail from Brauchli which said that the "language in the flyer [sic] and the description of the event preclude our participation."

"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," Brauchli's e-mail states. "There is a long tradition of news organizations hosting conferences and events, and we believe The Post, including the newsroom, can do these things in ways that are consistent with our values."

Like many newspapers, the Post has been hemorrhaging money. In the first quarter of this year, the newspaper reported an operating loss of $53.8 million.

After news of the salon program circulated widely on the Internet, the Post canceled it.

"This should never have happened. The fliers got out and weren't vetted," Weymouth told her paper. "They didn't represent at all what we were attempting to do. We're not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom."

Washington Post sells access, White House denies involvement | Washington Examiner

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

From the insufferable arrogance of Katherine Graham to the present time, The Washington Post has refused to concede that ordinary Americans have a "stake" in their government. In their view we are ruled , and rightfully so, by an elite composed of "better" people--that is, people like themselves.

That, in a nutshell, sums up what is wrong with 99.9% of our elected leaders, on both sides of the aisle.

A glorified prostitution ring...

__________________
January 21, 2013: The End of an ERROR.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
---Benjamin Franklin

they are also refusing to publish the invite list and whom in the WH was working this with them...but alas...I had a great deal more respect for the wapo before this.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

apparently this is not new and several others have done same, ala the Wall st journal and Economist among others.....I don't like it and its not their jobs ( the economist is less egregious as I don't think they advertise themselves as a news outfit) to run lobbyist mett and greets imho.





For embarrassed Washington Post executives — reeling from what the paper's own ombudsman called a public relations "disaster" over a flier promoting a "salon" for lobbyists to mingle with prominent newsmakers — there must be a sense of "Why us?"


The fact is the Post's clumsy effort to make money on its brand name

and market its access to the powerful was a belated effort to follow in the steps of at least two other prominent news organizations: The Wall Street Journal and the Economist magazine.


The Journal, for instance, is charging a $7,500 for its two-day CEO Council in November, an elite gathering that will include the paper's top editors and high-profile speakers like Tony Blair, Rupert Murdoch, and Education Secretary Arne Duncan. And for a few thousand dollars, The Economist can open the door to intimate off-the-record meet-and-greets with world leaders.


These events illustrate how the basic transaction — charging big fees to special interests to arrange private, special-access encounters with powerful people — that caused the Post this week to be excoriated is a more endemic practice than many people in political and media circles realize. Some watchdogs hope this week’s Post scandal will help put an end to a hard-to-defend practice by revenue-hungry news organizations.


Tom Rosenstiel, director of Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism, said he thought the Post flier raised a red flag for news organizations to be wary of entering into a financial arrangement with people that you're covering.



Access scandal echoes beyond the Washington Post - Michael Calderone and Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

An outrage the TV News is actively covering up for their pro-war, pro establishment, pro-corporate prostitute.

This should be on every channel not Michael.

Is Pres. Obama himself in on this?

Holy crap! I agree with the professor.

That's cause for celebration.

Sorry, I couldn't resist......as you were.

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

and here we go, I guess they were in control from the start and knew exactly what was going on and what was part and parcel of the plan.

an article from the Posts ombudsman.

A Sponsorship Scandal at The Post

By Andrew Alexander
Sunday, July 12, 2009



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

Publisher Katharine Weymouth and Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli have now taken full responsibility for what was envisioned as a series of 11 intimate dinners to discuss public policy issues. For a fee of up to $25,000, underwriters were guaranteed a seat at the table with lawmakers, administration officials, think tank experts, business leaders and the heads of associations. Promotional materials said Weymouth, Brauchli and at least one Post reporter would serve as “Hosts and Discussion Leaders” for an evening of spirited but civil dialogue.

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.

Lower down, others inside and outside the newsroom were aware that sponsored events would involve news personnel in off-the-record settings, although they lacked details. Several now say they didn’t speak up because they assumed top managers would eventually ensure that traditional ethics boundaries would not be breached.


Some at The Post view Pelton as overly eager and not attuned to the newsroom’s ethical sensitivities. But Pelton raised questions about some of those very issues in a May 21 e-mail to Weymouth, Brauchli and Stephen P. Hills, The Post’s president and general manager. Pelton reports to Hills, who declined to be interviewed.
The e-mail said the plan to hold the dinners at Weymouth’s home “speaks to heavy editorial involvement” through “mixing different editors and beat reporters.” But in arguing for “background only” discussions, Pelton asked if they thought the discussions should be “on or off the record.” And while he endorsed the sponsorship idea, noting there would always be “more than one,” he also said “I want to be sure our newsroom is also comfortable” with the arrangement.

Within an hour of receiving the e-mail, Brauchli forwarded it to his top three editors — managing editors Raju Narisetti and Liz Spayd, as well as deputy managing editor Milton Coleman — asking their thoughts.


Andrew Alexander - The Stumbles That Led to an Ethics Blunder

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Well heck..I agree with you...better check the weather outside...

__________________

The government cannot give without first taking.

further it appears the decks had been cleared for staff, cab. members etc. to attend.



The proposed Post salons didn't violate W.H. ethics rules

snip-


Obama touted his executive order as the strictest government ethics policy ever when he signed it on his first full day in office, but less than three weeks later, the independent agency tasked with implementing the order, the Office of Government Ethics, in consultation with the counsel’s office, issued a little-noticed memo inserting a number of exemptions into the order’s provision banning gifts – including meals and tickets – from lobbyists.


Among the exemptions were gifts from media organizations – even those that employ lobbyists, like the Post does. The memo cited “the unique constitutional role of the press in gathering and disseminating information” but also the desire to protect administration official’s ability to attend “certain press dinners,” presumably referring to the annual black-tie soirees thrown by the White House Correspondents' Association and the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association.

In explaining the White House’s position on the Post dinners, LaBolt said that “making administration officials available for discussion is in the public interest, and the policy does not prevent them from participating in events and forums simply because an audience is limited in scope. But administration officials may not participate in events in which an organization attempts to buy access or to exploit them for financial gain.”


The White House, however, declined to answer questions about whether the counsel’s office reviewed an invitation that Weymouth had sent to Health and Human Services Secretary Katharine Sebelius to the first of the planned dinners, scheduled for July 21 and built around the theme of health care. It also declined to discuss whether any other administration officials sought approval to attend either the Post’s salon or other media-sponsored events, or whether the counsel’s office had approved officials’ participation in previous events, such as the Future of Finance Initiative conference hosted by The Wall Street Journal in March. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and economic adviser Larry Summers spoke at that conference.



The proposed Post salons didn't violate W.H. ethics rules - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."