UPDATE: WaPo newsroom refuses to participate in paid-for dinners with lobbyists

Posted by Liz Webber on July 2, 2009 at 3:41 PM

In a bizarre new venture, the Washington Post had promised lobbyists a chance for off-the-record meetings with policy makers and newsroom staff for the price of a $25,000 sponsorship, according to a flier shown to Politico by a health care lobbyist. These "Washington Post Salons" would consist of dinners at the home of WaPo CEO and publisher Katharine Weymouth.

A WaPo spokeperson has responded to Politico, stating, "As written, the newsroom could not participate in an event like this." Apparently the event planning division of the company sent out the flier advertising reporters' participation without first alerting the newsroom.

Politico also obtained a copy of an internal memo sent by Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli, reaffirming that staff members would not be taking part in the events as "Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable."

The flier - entitled "Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate" - advertises events with a maximum of 20 guests, which participating firms can co-sponsor for $25,000 per event. Underwrite all "Salons" in the series and get 11 for the cost of 10; $250,000 is the price tag for an annual sponsorship.

The theme of the first dinner is health care reform. WaPo guarantees the attendance of Obama administration officials and members of Congress as well as reporters and other staff members.

Newsroom chatter indicates the newspaper had been planning a series of on-the-record conferences typical of the industry, but the "Salons" take things a step further.

Regardless of the news industry's current financial difficulties, this latest scheme by WaPo seems an odd way to boost revenue. It also calls into question the ethics behind such a project. Don't newspapers usually argue for more transparency in government? Not to mention that the participation of journalists in these events could compromise their impartiality and their role as watchdogs. Even if these events are not strictly forbidden, the doubts already raised amount to an uncharacteristic misstep by WaPo.

Source: Politico