Sleazy Newspaper Scheme Exposed: Washington Post Offers Lobbyists Access to Lawmakers for Cash

Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet at 9:17 AM on July 2, 2009.

The story was leaked by a health lobbyist, who felt the move breached the Post's journalism ethics.

Post Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
13 COMMENTS

Share and save this post:

AlterNet Social Networks:

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

PEEK RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

This will require some hilariously desperate backpedaling.

The Washington Post is offering lobby groups access to its editorial staff, top officials in the Obama Administration, and lawmakers in Congress for $25,000 to $250,000. Politico reports that a flier circulated by the paper this week promises lobbyists the chance to mix with top lawmakers in a setting described as, "Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No." The flier further explains:

"Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," says the one-page flier. "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."

The flier was leaked by a health lobbyist, who felt the event represented a breach of the Post's journalism ethics. Does that bear repeating? A health lobbyist scolded the paper for poor ethical practices.

Read the rest of the story here.

Tagged as: obama, ethics, washington post, health lobby

Return to PEEK » Post Tools: EMAIL PRINT 13 COMMENTS PERMALINK

Also in PEEK
Woops! Bill O'Reilly Doesn't Remember What the Public Option Is Called, or That It's Pretty Popular (Video) Big Bill was shut down unexpectedly last night by fellow Fox Newser Brit Hume. Go figure. Post by Ben Armbruster. November 10, 2009.	Call Joe Lieberman's Bluff: A Real Fort Hood Inquiry Would Likely Shut Him Up If Lieberman were to actually have his calls for a "terrorism" investigation answered, he probably wouldn't like seeing the results. Post by John Nichols. November 10, 2009.	President Obama Has Refused to Stand Up for Women, Plain and Simple The president's "toe the line" approach is not acceptable this time. Post by Melissa McEwan. November 10, 2009.

Comments	Turn comments off sitewide	Give us feedback »
Comments closed. The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.		View:
Katherine Graham [Report this comment] Posted by: Quannah on Jul 2, 2009 10:52 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] must be rolling in her grave. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Fascism has taken over the Post [Report this comment] Posted by: sliver on Jul 2, 2009 11:48 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Let's jump right to it: is Hitler invited to this party? Because this is right out of the fascist playbook: combining business and politics, and printing it as news. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] ufb [Report this comment] Posted by: Ghoulman on Jul 2, 2009 2:43 PM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] ... I propose a new Internet acronym - ufb, meaning; Un-Fucking-Believable. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: I'll buy into that Posted by: americansheep » Additional acronym for the Post's flyer Posted by: LazyEight Another Conspiracy To Undermine Democracy? [Report this comment] Posted by: mkdelta69 on Jul 3, 2009 6:24 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] I thought it was AlterNets position that conspiracies were a figment of our imaginations? This seem like a conspiracy to undermine democracy. Except it's not secret. It's standard operating procedure for corporate politicians and the Main Stream Media. Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. This is certainly a continuing conspiracy to give only the corporations access to politicians. But it's been going on for so long. That like a frog in the pot. You refine the conspiracy by slowly turning up the heat and cutting the individual out of the political process. Thus democracy like the frog eventually dies a slow death. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: Another Conspiracy To Undermine Democracy? Posted by: Zeugitai Mukin Jornalizm [Report this comment] Posted by: particle on Jul 3, 2009 6:43 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Ollie North used to call it the "Washington Compost." These days it's racing to become a slimey print version of WorldNutDaily. So Ollie gets his way. It maks uh Patriut sew proud! [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] So, News Media are Supposed to be Influenced by Owners, not Sponsers? [Report this comment] Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Jul 3, 2009 7:10 AM Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Is it OK for Sun Yung Moon to exert total right-wing control over the New York Times, or for Rupert Murdock to dictate the editorial policy of the Washington Times, but not OK for the Washington Post to peddle influence in an effort to survive? From Wikipedia: "Disney, "New" Viacom (and its former parent CBS Corporation, the former "Old" Viacom), TimeWarner, News Corporation, and General Electric together own more than 90% of the media holdings in the United States." Cultural changes are making it impossible for independent news media (outside the Internet) to survive. The "news" outlets that survive do so because their corporate owners are willing to operate them at a loss for the influence they gain over policy and public opinion. Was the Washington Post wrong? Yes. Will they survive without a corporate quid pro quo? No. The Internet is next. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: So, News Media are Supposed to be Influenced by Owners, not Sponsers? Posted by: madashell8683 Terrytom What is one to do? [Report this comment] Posted by: Terrytom on Jul 3, 2009 1:27 PM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Drop the Fascists pigs. I don’t buy the paper but I do get their news flashes on the web. The featured flash was not from the post at least in the e-mails I get from them. Hello? No surprise. I am going to drop them and tell them why, most of the time I just deleted each one as it arrived because most were not worth reading. We should start boycotting every right-wing scum organization. Get into the streets. Begin mass rolling strikes and vote every incumbent out of office unless they really do our bidding. That leaves less than 5 senators by my count. Here are a few issues of which they are ignoring the people’s; wishes, universal single payer HEALTH CARE, both wars and the insanely bloated military budget, torture and civil liberties. Please add to the list if you will. Terrytom [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Such a DISGRACE! The Fourth Estate is DEAD! [Report this comment] Posted by: c&s mom on Jul 3, 2009 2:22 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Here we are at a very important juncture and we find that a formally respected organization is trying to keep the average American who is struggling with health care costs out of the discussion. $25,000 for a seat, no grass roots organization can do that and the boldness of their offering - actually disgusting and disgraceful and a lobbyist turns them in. The WP has been playing fast and loose with everything. They own a company that puts together the tests for the standardized tests that are all the rage in education and they support them in their paper. The conflict of interest is wild. No one pays attention. Just a comment, isn't the Washington Times owned by Rev. Moon and Murdock owns the Post and the Wall Street Journal? That was my understanding. I hope we can all sleep tonight between this and hearing that the Carbon Tax bill takes away the power of the EPA to regulate carbon in the atmosphere and it gives a lot to big coal, we are all in trouble. I am seriously considering that the Obama White House seems to be selling us out. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] ALL lobbyists, or just the "right (wing)" ones? [Report this comment] Posted by: monkeywrench on Jul 4, 2009 9:35 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] If this isn't illegal, it sure-as-hell ought to be. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

«	November 2009					»
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30

» RE: I'll buy into that Posted by: americansheep

» Additional acronym for the Post's flyer Posted by: LazyEight

» RE: Another Conspiracy To Undermine Democracy? Posted by: Zeugitai

» RE: So, News Media are Supposed to be Influenced by Owners, not Sponsers? Posted by: madashell8683

Newsletter

PEEK archive by date:

Use » and « to view other months.

Search:

» RE: I'll buy into that Posted by: americansheep

» Additional acronym for the Post's flyer Posted by: LazyEight

» RE: Another Conspiracy To Undermine Democracy? Posted by: Zeugitai

» RE: So, News Media are Supposed to be Influenced by Owners, not Sponsers? Posted by: madashell8683