When I started my current public-relations job, I had worked in the media for most of my career up till that point, but all as a journalist and never from the PR side. So I asked my boss for some quick tips on dealing with the media. The first thing he said was, “Don’t lie.” (which was ironic, given journalists’ traditional view of PR people as dishonest spin artists.)

Sadly, that lesson was obviously lost on the people at the Washington Post who handled the damage control after outrage erupted on the Internet over reports of the Post’s plans to host off-the-record dinners that would be attended by political insiders and its own staff members and charge special-interest groups $25,000 to $250,000 for a seat at the table. The Post initially said that the flier that went out soliciting sponsorships for the event was a draft and that neither the publisher nor the executive editor were aware of it. It also claimed that the newsroom knew little about the event. The blame was generally laid at the feet of the recently hired marketing executive who came up with the idea.

However, as this story by the Post’s own ombudsman seems to indicate, the publisher and the executive editor were more involved in discussions about the salons than previously implied. Furthermore, questions about the ethics of such events were apparently raised months ago. Three top newsroom executives were aware of the planning of these events and were asked for their opinions, and about 200 managers, including a number from the newsroom, got a quick PowerPoint presentation of the salons at a meeting.

Needless to say, the discrepancies between the ombudsman’s column and the Post’s original version of the events reflect badly on the newspaper. If the initial lapse in ethics wasn’t enough, the apparent omissions and inaccuracies in the explanation only do further damage to the paper’s reputation. They also provide more fuel to the online debate, keeping the topic in the public consciousness for even longer.

Hosting For-Profit Events

Despite the Post’s debacle, I do believe news organizations can hold events where political insiders, its own staff, and special interests participate. In fact, I would argue that hosting such events is part of a news org’s mission to spur public discussion on important issues.

However, such events must not become vehicles for bringing the rich together with the powerful in a closed-door setting, which is antithetical to the mission of a journalistic organization. While the rich and the power have no problem getting together outside the public view on their own, news orgs should not contribute to the problem by creating additional opportunities for them to do so.

As much as possible, the public must also have a seat at the table, which means no $25,000 admission fees. News orgs can and should charge for admission to events that they are organizing, but it must be something that’s relatively accessible to more than just the wealthy. In cases where a large, public gathering may not be the best setting for the purpose of the event, the news orgs should still insist on the event being on the record.

• Alan Mutter’s thoughts on newspapers hosting for-profit events