WaPo Now Admits to “Salon” Scandal (Guess It’s No Longer Just a Misundertanding)

Last week, we reported about an ethics scandal brewing at the WaPo, wherein lots of backpedaling, minimizing and all around denials were the order of the day. All can be read here. Hat tip to Ed Morrissey and HotAir for closely monitoring these developments. Now, thanks to Ombudsman Andrew Alexander, today’s article in WaPo, A Sponsorship Scandal at The Post, reveals the extent of culpability and gets past prior obfuscations:

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.

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.

Read the rest of Mr. Alexander’s findings here. As he points out, amidst their own budget crisis, as with many other media outlets, WaPo is seeking “creative” ways of raising revenue. Ironic that part of the reason their readership is down is a sense that there is a bias and lack of integrity in their reporting — only to be exacerbated by actions like this one…no wonder the paper is in trouble.

Just as worrisome, as detailed in Politico’s article, No bar on ’salons’ in W.H. ethics rules, by Kenneth P. Vogel, it seems that the current administration’s ethics rules, purported to be the strictest ever, are not strict enough to bar participation in debacles such as the one described above:

Reacting to the controversy over The Washington Post’s abortive attempt to hold “salons” with lobbyists and Obama administration officials at the home of publisher Katharine Weymouth, the White House did its best to distance itself. The Post’s plan for money-making, off-the-record sessions “was not consistent with the administration’s ethics policy,” spokesman Ben LaBolt said this week.

But the White House counsel’s office, which has the authority to approve or reject invitations to appear at private events, could have cleared administration officials to accept the Post’s invitation without running afoul of Obama’s ethics executive order, according to most of the ethics lawyers consulted by POLITICO.

Obama touted his executive order as the strictest government ethics policy ever when he signed it on his first full day in office, but less than three weeks later, the independent agency tasked with implementing the order, the Office of Government Ethics, in consultation with the counsel’s office, issued a little-noticed memo inserting a number of exemptions into the order’s provision banning gifts – including meals and tickets – from lobbyists.
(snip)
Just as the idea for the salon, which was scrapped amid accusations that the paper was selling access to reporters and the government officials they cover, sparked a re-examination of journalism ethics, it could also prompt another look at the government’s complicated ethics rules. That’s because officials can expect to continue receiving invitations to media-hosted insider confabs, as an increasing number of cash-strapped national media outlets have already leveraged their reputations as in-the-know information brokers to expand into the lucrative elite-meeting planning business. Even the Post, in spite of its admittedly clumsy inaugural foray, has not given up on the concept.
(snip)
At first blush, media dinners at which lobbyists pay big bucks to break bread with journalists and high-ranking public officials they’re seeking to influence seem precisely the types of scenarios government ethics rules were designed to avoid.

“The loopholes they’ve created are big enough to drive a truck through,” said former House general counsel Stan Brand, a lawyer who defends public officials in corruption cases. “In some sense, they almost swallow the rule, so [the Post’s salon] would just be one more example of that. I don’t know that it would be any more egregious than the ones that they already engage in with other interested parties.”

Companies and groups seeking to influence government for years have taken advantage of loopholes in gift rules to fete politicians at lavish convention parties and host them at trade conventions.

So much for a new way of doing business in Washington.

Mr. Alexander of the Post concludes:

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.

Let’s hope more of us voice our displeasure.