Whoreshington Post
Watergate was a long time ago. The WaPo thought they'd deal with the downturn in the newspaper biz by charging lobbyists to have chats with their publisher. Richard Perez-Pena writes in The New York Times:

For generations, The Washington Post has been a scrupulous watchdog over the capital's cozy world of power networking. For a short time, it almost became the network's host.

The Post decided Thursday to cancel plans to charge lobbyists and trade groups $25,000 or more to sponsor private, off-the-record dinner parties at the home of its publisher, Katharine Weymouth, events that would have brought together lobbyists, business leaders, Post journalists and officials from the Obama administration and Congress.

The revelation of the parties early Thursday morning by Politico.com appalled members of The Post newsroom and put the paper squarely in the cross hairs of journalism ethicists. In response, Ms. Weymouth canceled the first dinner, scheduled for July 21.

A flier describing the events promised corporate sponsors conversation ("Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No.") at the Washington home of Ms. Weymouth. Sponsors were asked to pay $25,000 to attend an event, or underwrite a series of 11 for $250,000.

...In midafternoon, Ms. Weymouth sent a memo to employees, saying: "A flier went out that was prepared by the marketing department and was never vetted by me or by the newsroom. Had it been, the flier would have been immediately killed, because it completely misrepresented what we were trying to do." She added that other salon dinners would not involve the newsroom.

Ms. Weymouth can have din-din with whomever she wants, but charging $25,000 for it? I mean, there's pot luck and there pot very lucky. Personally, when I invite people to my home, I don't expect them to bring anything or pay. It's rude. If you can't afford to provide dinner -- and I'm guessing, despite the downturn, Ms. Weymouth isn't suffering terribly -- you don't have people over. This was about something else. And sorry, if all it takes is a little economic trouble for you to drop your ethics like a hooker's panties...well, you never had ethics at all.

From the LA Times' Peter Nicholas:

Little in the way of news was likely to emerge. The events were to be "off the record," meaning nothing revealed at the dinners could be reported. Although Post reporters would be present, they could be counted on to be "nonconfrontational," the fliers promised.

A Post reporter interviewed Thursday said the newsroom was "furious" about the plan. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the reporter said the ethics code at the paper is so strict that if reporters get so much as a coffee mug from someone they cover, they must donate the gift to charity.

"The whole thing stinks, but the money was the worst part. I was always taught that's the line you never cross," the reporter said.

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said in an interview: "The problem here for the Post is pretty simple, and that is, a news organization derives its credibility from the idea that it's operating in the public interest -- it's trying to gather information and make it public.

"By holding off-the-record events for money, it's hard to see how that generates any knowledge for the public. And it potentially undermines its claim that its first loyalty is to the citizen."

Jack Shafer writes on Slate:

I want to take Weymouth's and Brauchli's screams of shame as genuine, if only for this reason: If the paper decided to sell the newsroom's integrity, wouldn't it charge a thousand times the sticker price quoted in the rogue flier? Besides, the Post's "health care reporting and editorial staff," whose attendance the flier promised, would have refused to participate.

There's nothing new about journalists sitting down to a meal with high government officials, Washington fixers, and even "intellectuals" at the home of the publisher of the Washington Post. Katharine Graham hosted hundreds of such off-the-record affairs at her Georgetown residence during her years as Post publisher and company chairman.

...Of course, there's a big difference between a conference run in broad daylight and an intimate for-pay gathering at a publisher's home. At a conference, sponsorship is transparent, and attendees aren't purchasing direct access to the notables on the stage. The whole point of buying a ticket to Weymouth's house, though, is to buy access--the publisher has essentially gone into the business of facilitating lobbying.

To gauge just how unkosher the Weymouth salon is, consider a smaller-scale version of the same practice: A reporter throws a poker party at his home. The guest list includes legislative aides and junior lobbyists. That's OK, right? It's just a poker game among a bunch of guys who live in Washington. But the minute the reporter starts charging the lobbyists money on the promise that legislative aides will attend, he's crossed the line. He's no longer hosting a party; he's arranging a lobbying session for personal profit. His editors would tan his hide. Then they'd fire him.

If it's ugly for a Washington Post reporter to lobby for lobbyists, it's doubly ugly for the publisher to do the same. The publisher should sell lobbyists all the subscriptions to the paper that they want, sell them as many pages of advertisements in the Post as will make them happy, and, I suppose (if she wants to take the heat), even sell them the right to sponsor a Washington Post conference, as long as the sponsorship is public.