Like many, I was in disbelief and disgust today over the Washington Post’s plans to host off-the-record dinners at its publisher’s house for lobbyists to meet and discuss policy issues with people in the Obama administration, Congressional leaders, and members of the Post’s staff. The Post would charge participants anywhere from $25,000 to $250,000 to sponsor each event. After the news broke, outrage ensued, and the Post quickly canceled those plans, with both publisher Katharine Weymouth and executive editor Marcus Brauchli saying they were not aware of the marketing fliers that had gone out to health-care lobbyists soliciting sponsorship for the first such event.

First, the text of the flier that was sent out to health-care lobbyists soliciting participation in the first salon:

Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate. 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.

My main thought on the sequence events, aside from the initial WTF reaction, is that I find the statements by Weymouth and Brauchli unsatisfactory. Both mainly made declarations about how access to the Washington Post newsroom is not for sale. However, the way I see it, selling access to the Post journalists is the lesser of the Post’s sins in this case.

The bigger issue, and the one that neither Weymouth nor Brauchli addressed, is the fact that the Washington Post, one of the top newspapers in the country, an organization that is supposed to shine light on hidden information and expose corruption, was offering to host OFF-THE-RECORD meetings between special-interest lobbyists and members of the administration and Congress (just typing that sent a shiver down my spine). There is little doubt that closed-door access to political insiders was the centerpiece of the offering. After all, who’s going to pay $25,000 to $250,000 for a quiet evening discussion with members of the Post staff? The politicians were the main course for these salons, and the journalists would just be the garnishing. For a journalism organization to offer to hold such events goes against everything journalism stands for. You are supposed to be trying to find and expose such dealings, not take part in them, much less organize them.

Yet, even as the Post announced cancellation of those plans, it did not address this issue at all. Instead, it almost seemed like the statements by its brass intentionally tried to direct attention away from this issue by focusing exclusively on the ethics of charging for access to newsroom staff. While that is an issue that merits discussion and attention, it is definitely the smaller concern in this case. I hope the Post will at some point tackle the much more serious ethical breach it was committing.

A couple other thoughts:

• One obviously has to view the Post brass’ claim of being unaware of the flier with at least some skepticism. However, I will say this: In my experience working at newspapers, it is not uncommon for the marketing department of the paper to do something that involves the editorial side without the editorial people who would be affected knowing anything about it until the plan was already put into motion. Sad to say, the communication over the wall really is that bad.
• As I said on Twitter, this plan sounded like one of those bad movies that, after you are done watching it, you can’t help but ask, “Who the heck looked at this script and thought this would be a good movie to make?!” Anyone working at a newspaper, whether on the editorial or marketing side, should’ve heard sirens going off in their heads the minute they laid eyes on this proposal. The fact that an idea as blatantly rotten as this actually made it into implementation is a sad statement, not only about newspapers, but also about corporate culture in general.

UPDATE

• Here’s a column by the Washington Post’s ombudsman on the fiasco. It provides some more insight into the matter, but I still think it fails to address the issue of a news organization organizing off-the-record meetings between lobbyists and policy makers.
• Just checked the Washington Post story again, and it looks like they’ve updated it to talk a bit more about the ethical issue I raised above. The new stuff starts toward the bottom of the first page. Still, no statements from either Weymouth or Brauchli about the issue.
• And if you want a good laugh, check this out: