Washington Post selling access

[Oblong]

Washington Post sells access, $25,000+ - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

For only $25,000 you can go to a WaPo party with top Obama officials and newspaper editors and reporters.

Gee, I wonder why reporters are included? Maybe soon there'll be some "unbiased" story favorable to the lobbyist that coughed up $25,000?

[Melody]

Supposedly these are "off the record" meetings as well. WaPo pimping Obama White House. That's not news. What's remarkable is that they are doing it right out in the open now, without shame.

[CMRivdog]

I think it is a bit of a slippery slope. I'm really not sure how the reporters feel about it, but it is pretty typical on how many corporate media managers are these days. Its all about the money, and damn the credibility. I would bet that there are several editors that are checking their 401K's these days and wondering whether that local frappuchino is available.

Just throwing this out.

The Metro Detroit Chamber of Commerce's Mackinac Conference is a place where buisness, politicos and the media mingles on a regular basis (especially at the opening night cocktail party). Do you media bashers see any problem with this?

[JohnJMS]

Gee, if only I had a spare $25K laying around. These GOPers - all they do is cater to the rich. Oh wait - it's an event with Obama officials.

[sinister porpoise]

Originally Posted by Melody

Supposedly these are "off the record" meetings as well. WaPo pimping Obama White House. That's not news. What's remarkable is that they are doing it right out in the open now, without shame.

Are you kidding? Go look at the Washington Post editorial page and tell me the paper isn't conservative.

Charles Krauthammer
William Kristol
David Ignatius
David Broder
Michael Gerson
Robert Kagan

etc.

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Weymo...01/220227.html

When media executives look at their shrinking audiences, they rarely attribute the decline to their liberal bias in covering the news. But recent developments at the Washington Post demonstrate that a return to fair coverage attracts readers.

Since Katharine Weymouth became publisher more than a year ago, and she named Marcus Brauchli, a former Wall Street Journal editor, executive editor in September, the paper has been making an honest effort to be fair.

Hit jobs against Bush administration programs and Republicans in general have virtually vanished. Instead, the paper presents issues fairly. No longer is the other side suppressed or relegated to the last paragraph.

If Newsmax.com thinks a publication is fair, it isn't

[Melody]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

Are you kidding? Go look at the Washington Post editorial page and tell me the paper isn't conservative.

Charles Krauthammer
William Kristol
David Ignatius
David Broder
Michael Gerson
Robert Kagan

etc.

Newsmax.com - Washington Post Has Become a Model for the Media

If Newsmax.com thinks a publication is fair, it isn't

Deborah Howell - An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage - washingtonpost.com

By the way, those editorialists you listed are, of the names I recognize, are NOT Washington Post editors as in making decisions about the content of the newspaper.

[MrDeeds]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

Are you kidding? Go look at the Washington Post editorial page and tell me the paper isn't conservative.

Charles Krauthammer
William Kristol
David Ignatius
David Broder
Michael Gerson
Robert Kagan

etc.

Newsmax.com - Washington Post Has Become a Model for the Media

If Newsmax.com thinks a publication is fair, it isn't

The post started endorsing Presidents in 2000. Sine then:

Al Gore Democrat
John Kerry Democrat
Barack Obama Democrat

Very hard to argue that their editorial board is run by conservatives who support liberal politcians.

[sinister porpoise]

Equality of opportunity isn't the same as equality of results. McCain ran a worse campaign than Obama and was linked to a deeply unpopular incumbent (Bush). Even most conservatives that I've come across only voted for him as a lesser evil rather than someone they were excited about, which isn't the same for Obama

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

The post started endorsing Presidents in 2000. Sine then:

Al Gore Democrat
John Kerry Democrat
Barack Obama Democrat

Very hard to argue that their editorial board is run by conservatives who support liberal politcians.

Their most visible columnists are deeply conservative which should be self-evident if you follow their op-ed page at all. Just look at what they've published for say a week and see what you think. E.J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson might qualify as being visible and center-left but for the most part there is a strong bias for neo-conservative war-mongerers

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

I think it is a bit of a slippery slope. I'm really not sure how the reporters feel about it, but it is pretty typical on how many corporate media managers are these days. Its all about the money, and damn the credibility. I would bet that there are several editors that are checking their 401K's these days and wondering whether that local frappuchino is available.

Just throwing this out.

The Metro Detroit Chamber of Commerce's Mackinac Conference is a place where buisness, politicos and the media mingles on a regular basis (especially at the opening night cocktail party). Do you media bashers see any problem with this?

Do they pay $25,000 directly to the media to go to the Mackinac conference? It'd be different if the Washington Post was an invitee along with the Obama people and the Lobbyists. But they are the organizers and financial benificiaries. The Lobbyists aren't going to spend $25,000 just for a photo op. They will want a return on that money.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

Equality of opportunity isn't the same as equality of results. McCain ran a worse campaign than Obama and was linked to a deeply unpopular incumbent (Bush). Even most conservatives that I've come across only voted for him as a lesser evil rather than someone they were excited about, which isn't the same for Obama

Translation: It's not really bias if they like the candidate better.

Oh dear.

[MrDeeds]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

Equality of opportunity isn't the same as equality of results. McCain ran a worse campaign than Obama and was linked to a deeply unpopular incumbent (Bush). Even most conservatives that I've come across only voted for him as a lesser evil rather than someone they were excited about, which isn't the same for Obama



Their most visible columnists are deeply conservative which should be self-evident if you follow their op-ed page at all. Just look at what they've published for say a week and see what you think. E.J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson might qualify as being visible and center-left but for the most part there is a strong bias for neo-conservative war-mongerers

George Will is a neo-conservative war mongerer?

Dionne, Robinson and Richard Cohen all have prominent columns and lean to the left. Again, the editorial board has never endorsed a Republican Presidential candidate. It is not conservative, that's just silly.

[MrDeeds]

Originally Posted by Melody

Translation: It's not really bias if they like the candidate better.

Oh dear.

Or it's not bias as long as they feel its good for the country?

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by Oblong

Do they pay $25,000 directly to the media to go to the Mackinac conference? It'd be different if the Washington Post was an invitee along with the Obama people and the Lobbyists. But they are the organizers and financial benificiaries. The Lobbyists aren't going to spend $25,000 just for a photo op. They will want a return on that money.

No, just an opportunity for everyone to get drunk together

I'm not sure the lobbyists are hoping to get anything from the WP other than an opportunity for future access. I'm sure the lobbyists have pretty much the same access at several other D.C coctail parties.

To this jaded media whore, it just sounds like a half baked money making opportunity by the publishers of WP. Sometimes ideas like this come from higher up in the corporate ladder and you just have to suck it in and wait for your options to vest.

[sinister porpoise]

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

George Will is a neo-conservative war mongerer?

Dionne, Robinson and Richard Cohen all have prominent columns and lean to the left. Again, the editorial board has never endorsed a Republican Presidential candidate. It is not conservative, that's just silly.

The editorials today are by

E.J. Dionne - liberal

Alvaro Vargas Llosa - head of a conservative organization, Independent Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Broder - conservative

William C. Weldon - ? CEO of Johnson & Johnson, made $30,000,000 last year. Probably conservative.

John Bolton - neo-conservative

David Ignatius - neo-conservative / conservative

Originally Posted by Melody

Translation: It's not really bias if they like the candidate better.

Oh dear.

Yeah, you don't want to argue that McCain's campaign was managed much worse than Obama's and you don't want to argue that McCain had equivalent support among his constituency to Obama, do you?

[MrDeeds]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

No, just an opportunity for everyone to get drunk together

I'm not sure the lobbyists are hoping to get anything from the WP other than an opportunity for future access. I'm sure the lobbyists have pretty much the same access at several other D.C coctail parties.

To this jaded media whore, it just sounds like a half baked money making opportunity by the publishers of WP. Sometimes ideas like this come from higher up in the corporate ladder and you just have to suck it in and wait for your options to vest.

I agree with your analysis. Seems to me to be how the game is played in Washington.

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

I agree with your analysis. Seems to me to be how the game is played in Washington.

Not only in D.C. I bet something similar is happening in other cities (large and small) as well.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

Yeah, you don't want to argue that McCain's campaign was managed much worse than Obama's and you don't want to argue that McCain had equivalent support among his constituency to Obama, do you?

My point is that it isn't relevant to the question whether the Post has an Obama bias. They do. They admitted it themselves, for Pete's sake!

[Oblong]

Post says "Never mind"

washingtonpost.com

"Absolutely, I'm disappointed," Weymouth, the chief executive of Washington Post Media, said in an interview. "This should never have happened. The fliers got out and weren't vetted. 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."

Moments earlier, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said in a separate interview that he was "appalled" by the plan, and he insisted before the cancellation that the newsroom would not participate.

"It suggests that access to Washington Post journalists was available for purchase," Brauchli said. The proposal "promises we would suspend our usual skeptical questioning because it appears to offer, in exchange for sponsorships, the good name of The Washington Post."

[CMRivdog]

The more I think about it, it sounds like a wacko salesmanager gone biserk...I would be curious to see how far up in the organization it got. I'm sure it never made it to the newsroom (editors) side of the business.

Washington Post Draws Fire With "Salon" Series - The Atlantic Politics Channel

The newsroom was evidently unaware of its promised part in the salons, and Post editor Marcus Brauchli sent out a newsroom-wide e-mail at 10:33 saying the newsroom wouldn't participate in the first salon, that there's a way for news organizations to host conferences (a standard practice), and that, as the the "salon" plan is described by the flier, this isn't it. Conor Clarke called it the "fastest damage control ever."

The business of media-organized conferences, roundtables, seminars, and presentations works, in most cases, similarly to the everyday sale of newspapers and magazines. The editorial staff has something to offer in the way of content--information, expertise, relationships with prominent sources who will talk about health care in front of an audience (booking power), good questions for the experts and an ability to moderate the discussion--and the business side sells that content to advertisers or attendees.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

The post started endorsing Presidents in 2000. Sine then:

Al Gore Democrat
John Kerry Democrat
Barack Obama Democrat

Very hard to argue that their editorial board is run by conservatives who support liberal politcians.

are you suggesting the folks he listed aren't conservatives?

[tigerfanfromchicago]

Originally Posted by Melody

Translation: It's not really bias if they like the candidate better.

Oh dear.

Considering the Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama and had never endorsed a Democrat for President before that, it may have worked that way.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by pfife

are you suggesting the folks he listed aren't conservatives?

The editorial board and the columnists they choose to run are not the same people.

Krauthammer and Kristol don't have any say at all into who the Washington Post endorses for President.

[Melody]

washingtonpost.com
Now it's been cancelled and, of course, Weymouth is trying to cast blame elsewhere.

Moments earlier, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said in a separate interview that he was "appalled" by the plan, and he insisted before the cancellation that the newsroom would not participate.

"It suggests that access to Washington Post journalists was available for purchase," Brauchli said. The proposal "promises we would suspend our usual skeptical questioning because it appears to offer, in exchange for sponsorships, the good name of The Washington Post."

Sounds like the executive editor "gets it." Or at least, after seeing the fuss decided that it might be a good idea not to touch it with a ten foot pole.

EDIT: Nevermind. http://www.politico.com/blogs/michae...troversy_.html It's a good idea, they just didn't want it described in such a manner as to show what it really was.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Melody

My point is that it isn't relevant to the question whether the Post has an Obama bias. They do. They admitted it themselves, for Pete's sake!

No - debbie howell commented on it. She has been biased and wrong on a number of matters.

[MrDeeds]

Originally Posted by pfife

are you suggesting the folks he listed aren't conservatives?

No. How do you leap to that idea?

[billms]

the content of your response

[sinister porpoise]

Originally Posted by Melody

My point is that it isn't relevant to the question whether the Post has an Obama bias. They do. They admitted it themselves, for Pete's sake!

When the evidence for the WaPo having a liberal bias is that they ran more positive stories about Obama than McCain, it does matter whether or not Obama ran a better campaign / was a better candidate / was more liked by his constituents / etc.

as for WaPo ombudsmen discussing the paper's spin:
The Press vs. Al Gore : Rolling Stone

During the debates, though, Bush made a handful of blunders regarding military operations in the Balkans and Haiti, about the facts surrounding Texas' most celebrated hate-crime trial and about his own tax plan. Bush was free to botch facts about central policy issues and the press wouldn't question his intelligence. But if Gore were to misstate nonessential details, such as how long a student had to stand in a crowded Sarasota classroom, he was tagged a liar who couldn't be trusted.

Few journalists saw anything wrong with this double standard. In fact, some found it amusing. "You can actually disprove some of what Bush is saying if you really get in the weeds and get out your calculator, or you look at his record in Texas," Time magazine columnist Margaret Carlson told radio morning man Don Imus at the height of the campaign. "But it's really easy, and it's fun, to disprove Gore. As sport, and as our enterprise, Gore coming up with another whopper is greatly entertaining to us."

Who decided that covering presidential politics was supposed to be "entertaining" and "fun" for journalists?

The press responds to critics on the right by bending over backward not to look liberal," says Geneva Overholser, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Journalism and former ombudsman for the Washington Post, referring to the common conservative criticism of the so-called liberal media. "The cumulative effect is the opposite: They're tougher on Democrats." She, too, is convinced there was "something fundamentally wrong" with the 2000 election press coverage.

By your own standards does that prove that the WaPo was a conservative paper and in Bush's corner 1999-2001?

[MrDeeds]

Originally Posted by billms

the content of your response

I'm baffled. Pointing out that the Post has never endorsed a Republican for President does not mean that I think Krauthammer or Will aren't conservatives.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

No. How do you leap to that idea?

you seem to be arguing the notion

[pfife]

Originally Posted by Oblong

The editorial board and the columnists they choose to run are not the same people.

Krauthammer and Kristol don't have any say at all into who the Washington Post endorses for President.

so his post didn't address SPs?

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

Very hard to argue that their editorial board is run by conservatives who support liberal politcians.

Maybe they just didn't want a rube to be president?

[Melody]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

Maybe they just didn't want a rube to be president?

Sure hope Obama stays healthy, or that's definitely what we'll have.

[billms]

I don't understand this whole play actually. I get the money game in washington. But what does the paper bring to play? The K street people know how to find the pols and host them for various functions to pay them off. But the Post just comes off as a pimp here. And after all - nobody likes the pimp.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by billms

I don't understand this whole play actually. I get the money game in washington. But what does the paper bring to play? The K street people know how to find the pols and host them for various functions to pay them off. But the Post just comes off as a pimp here. And after all - nobody likes the pimp.

The pimp with a huge megaphone to assist in the success of the transaction. Not only does lobbyist get to meet with Administration Honcho, they get assistance from the Post in promoting their idea. Instead of a 1 one 1 it's a menage a trois.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

When the evidence for the WaPo having a liberal bias is that they ran more positive stories about Obama than McCain, it does matter whether or not Obama ran a better campaign / was a better candidate / was more liked by his constituents / etc.

as for WaPo ombudsmen discussing the paper's spin:
The Press vs. Al Gore : Rolling Stone


By your own standards does that prove that the WaPo was a conservative paper and in Bush's corner 1999-2001?

Um. WPo endorsed Gore.

And by your standard, because they have Alan Colmes as a regular commenter on Fox, would that make Fox a liberal station?

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by billms

I don't understand this whole play actually. I get the money game in washington. But what does the paper bring to play? The K street people know how to find the pols and host them for various functions to pay them off. But the Post just comes off as a pimp here. And after all - nobody likes the pimp.

This sounds like an out of control salesperson or group. Many news organizations like the Post organize confernces or business breakfasts on a number of subjects like healthcare, energy etc. It is actually a good tool to sell sponsorships outside the regular ads in the newspaper. The editorial staff offers information, expertise, relationships with prominent sources on the subject at hand. The sales department sells that content to advertisers or attendees. This one evidently was not vetted with the content side of the business.

You are right, the Post does come off like a pimp. I wonder if the offending sales person still has a job today.

[MrDeeds]

Only only on the MTS message board could someone make the case that a newspaper that has never endorsed a Republican for Presidient is a conservative publication.

[mtutiger]

Originally Posted by Melody

And by your standard, because they have Alan Colmes as a regular commenter on Fox, would that make Fox a liberal station?

Considering that the WaPo has two regular conservative Fox commentators (Krauthammar and Kristol), as well as David Broder and David Ignatius on payroll, I don't see the parallel at all on this one. WaPo is represented quite well with conservatives, and none of the 4 mentioned are pansies (like Colmes).

Now, the NY Times, that's biased to the left, I'll agree.... but not the WaPo

[sinister porpoise]

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

Only only on the MTS message board could someone make the case that a newspaper that has never endorsed a Republican for Presidient is a conservative publication.

Their major editorial voices are conservative. The print content 365 days a year > endorsement

[CMRivdog]

I don't think the paper's political leanings has a great deal to do with the OP. If the marketing department thought they could make money with Dick Cheney and Ted Kennedy doing Sonny and Cher's greatest hits, they would do it.







Somewhere Katherine Graham is rolling in her grave.