WASHINGTON POST Caught Selling Access To Journalists To CORPORATE "SPONSORS"!
Lykmi Pusi
-----------------------
"Post Co. Cancels Corporate Dinners"
"Journalistic Boundaries Brought Into Question"
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 3, 2009
WASHINGTON POST PUBLISHER Katharine Weymouth yesterday canceled plans
for a series of policy dinners at her home after learning that
marketing fliers offered corporate underwriters access to Post
journalists, Obama administration officials and members of Congress in
exchange for payments as high as $250,000.
"Absolutely, I'm disappointed," Weymouth 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."
The fliers were approved by a top Post marketing executive, Charles
Pelton, who said it was "a big mistake" on his part and that he had
done so "without vetting it with the newsroom." He said that Kaiser
Permanente had orally agreed to pay $25,000 to sponsor a July 21
health-care dinner at Weymouth's Northwest Washington home, and that
Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) had agreed to be a guest. Pelton, who serves
as general manager for conferences and events, said he had invited two-
dozen business executives, advocates and presidential health adviser
Nancy-Ann DeParle. But a White House spokeswoman said no senior
administration officials had agreed to attend, and an aide to DeParle
said she had received no such invitation.
Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said he was "appalled" by the plan.
"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."
The Post Co. fliers offered an "intimate and exclusive Washington Post
Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and
Publisher Katharine Weymouth." The fliers, which said participants
would be charged $25,000 to sponsor a single salon and $250,000 to
underwrite an annual series of 11 sessions, were reported yesterday by
Politico.
The full-color flier for the July 21 dinner said: "Bring your
organization's CEO or executive director literally to the table.
Interact with key Obama Administration and Congressional leaders . . .
Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting in the home of
Katharine Weymouth assures it." The dinner, it said, would involve
"health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington
Post . . . an exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care
reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done."
Weymouth, who had not seen the marketing copy, said that "we will
never compromise our journalistic integrity." But she said other news
organizations sponsor similar conferences and that she remains
comfortable with the basic idea of lobbyists or corporations
underwriting dinners with officials and journalists as long as those
paying the fees have no control over the content.
But precisely what would be acceptable remains unclear. Asked whether
the forums she envisions might still be viewed as buying access to
Post journalists, Weymouth said, "I suppose you could spin it that
way, but that is not the way it would have been done." She said the
situation would be comparable to a company buying an ad in the
newspaper while knowing that it "might hate the content" on that
page.
Brauchli, who is listed on the flier as a host and discussion leader,
had been involved in discussions with Weymouth and other executives
stretching back to last year. He said he made clear to the company's
marketing division that Post journalists would participate only if
they could control the nature of any such conference. Brauchli said
his conditions included multiple sponsors for an extended series of
forums, rather than companies financing a single dinner involving
their industry; a balanced lineup of participants from across the
political spectrum; and no charge for the invited guests.
But even with those caveats, the off-the-record format would ensure
that The Post could not report on the discussions, even as its name
was being used to lure high-profile newsmakers.
"We expressed our concerns and are disappointed by this outcome,"
Brauchli said of the fliers, which were labeled "Underwriting
Opportunity." "I would ascribe it to a lack of effective communication
internally."
Even without the newsroom's participation, the aggressively worded
pitch conveys the impression that The Post is offering special
interests access to administration officials and lawmakers, raising a
separate set of concerns about a dubious partnership with those
covered by the newspaper. The Post often questions whether
corporations, unions and trade associations receive access or favors
in return for campaign contributions.
Access to Weymouth herself, a granddaughter of longtime publisher
Katharine Graham who took over as chief executive of Washington Post
Media last year, would be deemed valuable by those trying to influence
The Post's editorial policies and news coverage.
Tom Fiedler, dean of Boston University's College of Communication,
said news organizations should be a neutral broker among differing
interests and that "what The Post was looking to do was to make a
profit on the role of the convener. . . . The idea of crossing a
boundary line that seems to me painted so brightly white, I'm
astonished that it got this far."
Pelton co-owned Modern Media, a California-based firm that staged
conferences, before joining The Post Co. two months ago. "We should
never imply that there's a possible link between coming [to dinners]
and access, either to the leaders or the policymakers or the
journalists," he said, conceding that he had been "sloppy . . . in my
enthusiasm to get the salons up and running without properly thinking
through the implications of what was written."
John Spragens, a spokesman for Cooper, said that once the Tennessee
Democrat learned the details of the dinner, he would not have attended
"a radioactive event. . . . You don't want to be put in a position as
a congressman where someone's buying access to you."
Sybil Wartenberg, a spokeswoman for California-based Kaiser
Permanente, said the company had not made a final decision to finance
the dinner -- no contract had been signed -- and was not attempting to
buy influence. "Our organization is not as well-known on the East
Coast," she said. "We're keenly interested in reform and want to be at
the table for discussions."
The controversy led White House counsel Gregory Craig to remind
administration officials that they need advance approval to
participate in such events. His memo said that "federal ethics rules
restricting the acceptance of gifts govern your ability to accept free
admission to events put on by a nongovernmental sponsor."
A number of media companies charge substantial fees for conferences
with big-name executives and government officials, but in many cases
the sessions are open for news coverage.
This week, for instance, Atlantic Media is sponsoring the Aspen Ideas
Festival, underwritten by Altria, Boeing, Booz Allen Hamilton, Ernst &
Young, Mercedes-Benz, Philips, Shell and Thomson Reuters. Speakers
include White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, U.N. Ambassador
Susan Rice, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Supreme Court Justice
Stephen Breyer and Google CEO Eric Schmidt, along with journalists for
Atlantic and other media outlets.
Atlantic Editor James Bennet said the festival, co-sponsored by the
Aspen Institute, "is open to the press . . . and we're videotaping it.
We have editorial control over it. We decide what the panels are and
who's on them. There are absolutely no constraints put on it at all."
In March, the Wall Street Journal brought together global finance
leaders -- including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd -- for a two-day conference
sponsored by Nasdaq and hosted by Robert Thomson, the Journal's top
editor, and other editors and reporters. Outside journalists were
invited to the session, which was on the record and webcast by the
Journal. Participants, who paid several thousand dollars to attend,
also had a White House meeting with economic adviser Lawrence Summers,
which was off the record at his request.
The Journal also holds conferences with its All Things Digital unit. A
session in May, described as offering "unmatched access to the
technology industry's elite," was sponsored by Hewlett-Packard and
Qualcomm, among others, and featured the CEOs of Microsoft, Yahoo, NBC
Universal, AT&T and Twitter, as well as Weymouth.
The New Yorker hosts an annual festival in Manhattan featuring its
editors and writers along with other journalists, authors and
entertainers. The gathering planned for October is sponsored by
American Airlines, Delta, Westin Hotels and Banana Republic.
Weymouth has come under increasing pressure to find new sources of
revenue. The Post Co. lost $19.5 million in the first quarter and just
completed its fourth round of early-retirement buyouts in several
years.
Many Post journalists were stunned by the Politico story and angry
about the fliers. Weymouth told the staff in an afternoon e-mail that
the flier "completely misrepresented what we were trying to do," but
added: "We do believe that there is a viable way to expand our
expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what
we do -- cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in
Washington."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070201563.html
John Fartlington Poopnagel
----------------------
A Letter to Our Readers
By Katharine Weymouth
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Dear Reader:
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. But let me be clear: The flier was not the only problem. Our
mistake was to suggest that we would hold and participate in an off-
the-record dinner with journalists and power brokers paid for by a
sponsor. We will not organize such events. As publisher it is my job
to ensure that we adhere to standards that are consistent with our
integrity as a news organization. Last week, I let you, and the
organization, down. The Washington Post remains committed, now and
always, to the highest standards of journalistic integrity. Nothing is
more important to us than that, and nothing will shake that
commitment.
So what happened? Like other media companies, The Post hosts
conferences and live events that bring together journalists,
government officials and other leaders for discussions of important
topics. These events make news and inform their audiences. We had
planned to extend this business to include smaller gatherings, a
practice that has become common at other media companies.
From the outset, we laid down firm parameters to ensure that these
events would be consistent with The Post's values. If the events were
to be sponsored by other companies, everything would be at arm's
length -- sponsors would have no control over the content of the
discussions, and no special access to our journalists.
If our reporters were to participate, there would be no limits on what
they could ask. They would have full access to participants and be
able to use any information or ideas to further their knowledge and
understanding of any issues under discussion. They would not be asked
to invite other participants and would serve only as moderators.
When the flier promoting our first planned event to potential sponsors
was released, it overstepped all these lines. Neither I nor anyone in
our news department would have approved any event such as the flier
described.
We have canceled the planned dinner. While I do believe there is a
legitimate way to hold such events, to the extent that we hold events
in the future, large or small, we will review the guidelines for them
with The Post's top editors and make sure those guidelines are
strictly followed. Further, any conferences or similar events The Post
sponsors will be on the record.
We all make mistakes and hope to be forgiven for them. I apologize to
our readers for the mistakes I made in this case.
We remain committed to you, our readers. We remain committed to the
highest standards of integrity. And while we will continue to pursue
new lines of business, we will never allow those new avenues to
compromise our integrity.
In the meantime, I hope that we can continue to count you as a reader
while we promise to continue to bring you the news as it develops,
unbiased and with the best reporting and editing we can offer.
Yours respectfully,
Katharine Weymouth
Publisher and CEO, The Washington Post
John Fartlington Poopnagel
Lykmi Pusi
By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 7, 2009 10:54 AM
The Washington Post yesterday initiated internal reviews to ensure
that its business practices do not compromise its journalistic ethics
when the newspaper organizes conferences or private events funded by
sponsors.
The reviews follow the revelation last week that The Post was planning
private, off-the-record dinners at the home of publisher Katharine
Weymouth for which it was seeking sponsors to pay $25,000 to
underwrite each session and participate in salon-style discussions
with politicians and journalists. Weymouth abruptly canceled the
dinners after a marketing flier promoted the first event as a "non-
confrontational" opportunity to influence policymakers. The publisher
and newsroom editors said that they never saw the flier before it went
out and that it distorted the dinner's intent.
Weymouth yesterday appointed the newspaper's general counsel, Eric
Lieberman, to review the discussions that led to the controversy. The
review, along with a parallel inquiry by Executive Editor Marcus
Brauchli and Senior Editor Milton Coleman, is aimed at avoiding
another episode that could damage the paper's reputation.
"We think we know what happened, but we want to know if there were any
details we missed or if there was something we overlooked," Weymouth
said in an interview. "If any of our business practices aren't clear,
we'll amend them."
In meetings with Post journalists yesterday, Brauchli acknowledged
that the dinners themselves -- not just the material promoting them --
were problematic and should have been rejected during their planning.
A newspaper that prides itself on covering the intersection of power
and money should not be creating a venue for such activity, he said.
"We should be in the business of shining bright lights on dark
corners, not creating the dark corners," Brauchli said.
Many news organizations have ventured into the lucrative event and
conference business in recent years to try to find new sources of
revenue for their declining print and online operations. The Wall
Street Journal, the New York Times, the Economist, the New Yorker,
Newsweek (owned by The Washington Post Co.) and dozens of trade
magazines host events that feature their journalists in panel
discussions and interviews with newsmakers.
Unlike The Post's canceled dinners, these events are open to the
public and on the record, meaning that journalists are free to report
any statements made.
The Atlantic magazine, however, has staged more than 100 events over
the past six years that are similar to what The Post envisioned. The
magazine regularly invites a group of 20 to 40 influential
participants to discussions that are closed, sponsored and off the
record.
Each of the Atlantic events is sponsored by a single organization or
company with a vested interest in the discussion and in influencing
its participants. Thus, an energy company might sponsor a discussion
about energy policy, or an employee union might sponsor a discussion
about pension reform.
The arrangement raises the same ethical issues as those of The Post's
controversial dinners: Is the news organization using its good
journalistic name to deliver decision makers to sponsors who want to
influence them, while limiting the public's participation? said Kelly
McBride, head of the ethics faculty at the Poynter Institute, a
journalism training organization.
Atlantic spokesman Zachary Hooper declined to identify participants or
sponsors of the magazine's salon dinners. He said that clear ground
rules were set: "From the outset, we've said there are no guarantees
of access to any individual or guarantee of influence over any
decision. The discussions are under the complete editorial control of
our staff."
A lengthy email from Atlantic Media Chairman David Bradley explaining
the practice of sponsored dinners was posted on The Atlantic's Web
site yesterday. In it, Bradley says he sees value in the off-the-
record sessions, but adds that the marketing materials advertising
them "do not all reflect the central fact of our conversations --
dialogue and debate, without the advance of a particular interest." He
writes that the spotlight generated by the Post controversy has
prompted a renewed effort to "make sure that future materials reflect
exactly the spirit and facts of" the Atlantic dinners.
Last week, The Post said a newly hired marketing executive, Charles
Pelton, was responsible for the brochure that mischaracterized the
first Post dinner, scheduled for July 21, focusing on health-care
reform. Pelton, who remains employed as the newspaper's general
manager of conferences and events, has not commented publicly since
Thursday.
But while Post executives immediately disowned the flier's
characterization, senior managers had already approved major details
of the first dinner. They had agreed, for example, that the dinner
would include the participation of Brauchli and some Post reporters;
that the event would be off the record; that it would feature a wide-
ranging guest list of people involved in reforming health care; and
that it would have sponsorship.
Some members of the newsroom raised objections about attending an
event at Weymouth's house. No change in plans was made.
The only unresolved question was whether the first event would have
multiple sponsors or a single one. Brauchli and Weymouth have said
they preferred multiple sponsors, to dilute the influence of any
particular sponsor. Yet when Weymouth's office sent out e-mail
invitations to the event early last week, only one sponsor, Kaiser
Permanente, was listed. (Kaiser officials have said they had not
decided whether to participate.)
Weymouth said she was on vacation last week and did not see the
invitation that was sent out in her name. If she had, she said, she
would have raised more questions about the event's planning.
Brauchli, Weymouth and Post Co. chief executive Donald Graham met
individually and in small groups with Post journalists yesterday,
seeking to reassure them and answer questions about the controversy.
"I thought it was helpful," said veteran political reporter Dan Balz.
"I thought they were forthcoming in trying to explain how it happened.
I think everyone still has questions about how this collective
breakdown occurred. This was not just two people in a room. There were
a number of discussions about it. That part concerned me. Everyone
knows the dinners were a bad idea. If anyone didn't know that before,
they know it now."
Kyle Schwitters
-----
"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.
Neither Weymouth nor Brauchli can recall anyone raising concerns,
although both say they wish someone had.
They were all aboard a fast-moving vehicle that, over a period of
months, roared through ethics stop signs and plowed into a brick
wall.
The crash occurred July 2, when Politico.com disclosed details of a
Post flier seeking underwriters for the first dinner to be held July
21 at Weymouth's District residence. The damage was predictable and
extensive, with charges of hypocrisy against a newspaper that owes
much of its fame to exposing influence peddlers and Washington's pay-
to-play culture. The Post's reputation now carries a lasting stain.
A key player in the controversy is Charles Pelton, who joined the
company May 18 as general manager of a new Washington Post Conferences
& Events business. A veteran of the events business who has a
background in journalism, he provided The Post's sales staff with the
now-famous flier that sought underwriters for the July 21 dinner. It
promised an evening of "news-driven and off-the-record conversation.
Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No." And it said participants could
"build crucial relationships with Washington Post news executives in a
neutral and informal setting."
When it was disclosed, Brauchli and Weymouth say they were stunned.
Both said they had not seen the flier in advance, that it miscast what
was envisioned and that it ran counter to The Post's values. Brauchli
said "parameters" had been discussed with Pelton that, among other
things, included "multiple sponsors" and not a single sponsor with a
vested interest.
In an e-mailed statement Friday, Pelton said: "This is a new venture,
there were some stumbles and too much of a rush to the finish. And
I've taken responsibility for my part in this. However, I strongly
believe that journalism must support more than a newspaper and a set
of Web sites. It needs new avenues of expression -- and revenue -- and
live events are just one of these."
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.
Spayd does not recall raising major concerns. "I thought we already
had attached some key ground rules -- more than one sponsor, a balance
of views, our ability to guide the conversation," she said. "In
retrospect, that wasn't enough. We shouldn't have been doing them at
all."
In his e-mailed response to Brauchli, Narisetti questioned using
Weymouth's home ("bad idea for anything commercial") and added "we
shouldn't commit to beat reporter." But he endorsed the concept and
said it was fine for Brauchli to attend, although he added that "a
couple of other relevant/key editorial people is the best we should
promise."
Coleman, now a senior editor, said he offered a "first blush" response
that agreed with Narisetti that Weymouth's home was not a good venue
and that he vaguely recalls raising a concern about whether the
evening might be off the record. He said he viewed the e-mail as a
"preliminary document" and assumed he would be involved in further
discussions as the event took shape.
About a month later, on June 24, roughly 200 managers were given a
quick explanation of the "salons" idea at a the end of a two-hour
meeting in the cavernous auditorium on the lobby floor of The Post's
downtown headquarters. These periodic "extended staff meetings," often
including multiple short presentations, are held to brief managers on
corporate strategy, and the details are considered confidential.
Some who were willing to describe the meeting, which was attended by a
number of newsroom managers, said that near the end it included a
PowerPoint presentation by Pelton, who noted there would be news
department participation in "off the record" salon dinners.
The description might not be expected to raise concern with business-
side managers unfamiliar with the newsroom's ethical policies. But
several attending from the news side now say they were bothered by
what they heard.
"I thought that this sounded a little dodgy," recalled Jeff Leen, who
runs The Post's investigative unit. But he said he was aware that
other publications had "experimented with them and I thought they were
going to work out the details."
In an interview, Brauchli said it was his responsibility to vet the
concept and that it is "understandable" that no news managers at the
meeting raised a caution.
"When the publisher and the editor both appear to have signed off on
an idea, I think it is perhaps true that a certain complacency sets
in," he said. For that reason, lower-level managers might be less
inclined "to stand up and say: 'Whoa, this is a bad idea.' "
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.
Weymouth and Brauchli came to realize all this was wrong -- but only
after the controversy erupted. In separate interviews this week, they
acknowledged this with candor, regret and embarrassment.
"Obviously, it didn't raise red flags for me or we wouldn't have
gotten this far," Weymouth said of Pelton's May 21 e-mail. "In
hindsight, I wish it had."
"I wish I had the perspective I now have of understanding how people
would perceive an event like this," said Weymouth. "I didn't perceive
it. It's my responsibility." Weymouth, a Harvard College and Stanford
Law School graduate, joined the Post in 1996 and has held several
positions, none in the newsroom. She is the granddaughter of the late
Katharine Graham, the legendary Post publisher, and is the niece of
Post Co. chief executive Donald E. Graham.
Brauchli, too, took blame.
"The Washington Post prides itself on its coverage of the intersection
of monied interests and people who guide policy or make laws. And we
should not be facilitating that intersection. We should be covering
it."
How could it have happened?
Like many newspapers, The Post is losing money and seeking new streams
of revenue. The idea of sponsored events seemed attractive because
other news organizations have convened them. Big events, like seminars
or conferences, can be lucrative, although the potential to be
realized from 11 dinners would be comparatively small.
The "salon dinner" concept was a throwback to when Katharine Graham,
as publisher, hosted private dinner parties for power brokers -- but
on her own dime. Today, Atlantic Media Company, owner of the Atlantic
and the National Journal, hosts sponsored, off-the-record gatherings
similar to what The Post was proposing.
Seeing opportunity, The Post hired Pelton, a genial and enthusiastic
Californian who had headed his own successful events firm. He was to
focus on larger events, and the salons were a small part of his
agenda. As is Weymouth's style for top managers, she gave him a long
leash.
"We provide our -- we call them 'Business Unit Owners' -- tremendous
autonomy," she said in an interview. "I think that is a good thing."
She and Pelton "talked about the importance of our newsroom
integrity," she said. "He understood he needed to work very closely
with the newsroom to make sure that everything we did was compliant
with our standards."
Brauchli conferred with Pelton about the salon dinners. At one point
they showed up at the newsroom desk of reporter Ceci Connolly, who
covers health care, which was to be the discussion topic of the July
21 dinner. Subsequently, she said, "Charles asked me for some contact
phone numbers and e-mails, which I provided."
Brauchli said that Pelton believed that "in order for these things to
succeed, they need to be on background. And I think the language went
from 'background' to 'off the record' which, from my perspective now,
[is] even worse."
The nomenclature is important because the terms mean different things
to different people. Within The Post, they are distinct.
The Post's internal stylebook equates "background" with "not for
attribution," meaning that statements and information can be reported
and attributed to a confidential source.
But "off the record" means "information cannot be used, either in the
paper or in further reporting." So for newsroom personnel, any
information gleaned at a salon dinner would be useless.
Initial plans had envisioned starting the dinners in September. But
Weymouth said Pelton was eager to begin in July and she said
"terrific, let's do it."
Planning moved forward.
On June 12, Post advertising employees received a Word document from
Pelton on June 12 titled "Washington Post Conferences" that touted
sponsorship opportunities for a menu of events. Under "Washington Post
Salons" it promised newsroom participation by "Executive editor, key
section editor, beat reporter (optional)" and said the evening would
be "off the record."
On June 17, another Word document was provided by Pelton to The Post's
advertising staff soliciting a $25,000 sponsorship -- "Maximum of two
sponsors" -- for the July dinner. Under "Hosts and Discussion
Leaders," it listed Weymouth, Brauchli and "Other Washington Post
health care editorial and reporting staff." It said participants could
"Interact with core players in an off-the-record format."
A week later, the flier was distributed to the ad sales staff.
At the same time, e-mails were being sent over Weymouth's name to
lawmakers and others inviting them to the July 21 dinner. They said
she, Brauchli and "health care reporter Ceci Connolly" were hosting
the evening. An accompanying invitation said it would be off the
record and noted that it would be underwritten by a single sponsor,
Kaiser Permanente. As it turned out, Kaiser Permanente had committed
verbally but had not signed a contract.
The flier made its way into the hands of a reporter for Politico,
which broke the story.
As of late this week, only two Post readers cited the controversy as a
reason for canceling their subscription. Only about 50 readers had
written critical letters to the editor, about half the number The Post
typically receives on a controversial topic.
But the criticism of The Post has been withering in the blogosphere,
among commentators and the Washington establishment. The episode has
left a scar that will be visible for years, and it has badly shaken
the newsroom.
"Marcus has learned a lesson. I have learned a lesson. Everyone has
learned a lesson," Weymouth said.
"I'm the leader of the organization. If anyone should have stopped it,
it should have been me," she added, saying that whether she remains as
publisher is "up to Don," her uncle.
When the question was put to Graham, who was traveling, he e-mailed:
"Katharine is an outstanding publisher of the Post; she understands
the values that are central to the Post and upholds them very well."
[Andrew Alexander can be reached at 202-334-7582 or at
ombu...@washpost.com. For excerpts from his interviews with Post
managers or to read outside journalists' advice to The Post's
publisher, read the Omblog.]