WaPo's controversial dinner plans cancelled

Posted by Emma Heald on July 3, 2009 at 10:14 AM

The Washington Post has decided to cancel its plans to host private, off-the-record dinner parties for political lobbyists at the home of its publisher after criticism from the newsroom at the suggestion that their services were effectively been sold. Publisher Katharine Weymouth was to host dinners that would give paying lobbyists and business leaders access to officials from the Obama administration and Congress, as well as Post journalists.

Politico first reported the story yesterday after obtaining a flier promoting the events that had been given to a healthcare lobbyist. The flier was entitled "Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate" and advertised events with a maximum of 20 guests to discuss major White House policy initiatives, which participating firms could co-sponsor for $25,000 per event, with up to two sponsors per session. There was also an offer for 11 for the price of 10. The theme of the first July dinner was to be health care reform, and WaPo guaranteed the attendance of Obama administration officials and members of Congress as well as reporters.

Extracts from the flier: "Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," it boasts. "Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth... 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. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less."

The newsroom was in uproar after hearing about the plan, and Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli swiftly asserted that reporters would not be taking part in such events, telling Politico that "You cannot buy access to a Washington Post journalist." Weymouth said in an email to staff the flier had been sent out by the marketing department without being vetted by her or by the newsroom and that it "completely misrepresented what we were trying to do." She said that the paper had been planning dinners involving the newsroom but that they would have been organised is such a way as to not "compromise our integrity," stressing that sponsorship of events "cannot imply control over the content or access to our journalists."

The marketing executive who approved the fliers, Charles Pelton said it was a "big mistake" on his part and confirmed that he had produced them without vetting. Post writer Howard Kurtz reported that Pelton said that Kaiser Permanente had verbally agreed to pay $25,000 to sponsor a July 21 health-care dinner at Weymouth's Northwest Washington home, and that Representative Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) had agreed to be a guest.

Brauchli confirmed that he knew of the event but not how it was being advertised. He told Politico that he had stipulated that if reporters were present, they would be allowed to ask questions that might infom their coverage. The idea that the dinners would be off-the-record entirely negates that. Kurtz reported that Brauchli said his conditions also included multiple sponsors for an extended period of forums, and no charge for invited guests.

Weymouth announced that the July dinner would not be held and "we will not hold salon dinners involving the newsroom." She did suggest, however, that events bringing together key Washington figures could be a future revenue source, saying that she believes the paper can "expand our expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what we do - cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in Washington." Kurtz pointed out that even just access to Weymouth herself would be "deemed valuable by those trying to influence The Post's editorial policies and news coverage."

Media commentators have expressed shock at the sequence of events. "This comes pretty close to a public relations disaster," wrote the Post's ombudsman Andrew Alexander, particularly, he points out, because the paper often decries those who charge for access to public officials. "The reaction from readers was immediate and ranged from anger to disappointment to disbelief," he added. The Guardian's Roy Greenslade described the offer shown in the flier as "astonishing" and Editor and Publisher wrote that "few newspaper controversies have caused such a wildfire of reaction." Richard Perez-Pena at the New York Times believes that although many news organisations have been turning to alternative ways to raise profits, the Post's plans "seem particularly audacious."

Looking at new revenue streams that build off a paper's contacts and expertise is wise in these difficult financial times, and organising conferences and similar events is one way that some publications have been doing that. Clearly, however, selling access to journalists in any way is not a practice in which any respectable news outlet should be engaging.

Source: Politico, Washington Post, (2), New York Times, Guardian, Editor & Publisher