Washington Post caught with Panties Down
Jul 4th, 2009 by Tennessee Walker
It was fun watching the Washington Post do their best imitation of Captain Renault from the movie Casablanca. “What, we are exposed trying to sell our influence in Washington??? Round up the usual suspects!!” In this case the usual suspects are in the business section of the Newspaper. Keep in mind folks there is one potential bogeyman in any news organization and this is the business section (or accountants or anyone interested in actually keeping the enterprise in business.)
Whereas, The Newsroom folks are always lily pure and idealistic, the business guys on the other hand do all the really bad things at a newspaper, electronic network, TV or radio station etc.
For those unfamiliar with the story here is the Politico post.
As usual the talking heads are focused on only the most obvious aspects of the story and those aspects of the story that will clear the rabidly liberal Washington Post of any type of impropriety. The Washington Post denizens are now keeping their heads low in an attempt to see this whole thing blow over and it will as their press buddies will utter the typical comments at how unseemly this is but it is time to move on to more important things.
The enablers of the Washington Post are focused on one event on July 21st despite the fact that Post management admits that this is to be a year long series of events with $250,000 sponsors getting to go to all of the year long events.
That this is a well thought out year long shake down effort of lobbyists (they are labeled as executive directors in the article) is being ignored. This is so that the Post can parrot the line that this is one big misunderstanding.
What is missing from the main stream media non-analysis of this issue is a question of the motivation for putting this whole deal together. As the story states, the Washington Post is in a $19.5 million dollar financial hole. Charging $25,000 for obvious influence peddling is yet another potential revenue stream for the paper. So the Washington Post has a great motivation for this move. The question is what is the motivation of those who are ponying up the $25,000 to $250,000 for the privilege of having a “spirited but non-confrotational” discussion on the topics?
After all, what does a lobbyist who favors Obamacare need to pay anything for positive coverage of this issue In the Washington Post??? Talk about wasting one’s money!!!!!!
On the opposite side of the coin, why would anyone pay $25,000 to make your case to the brick wall otherwise known as the Washington Post? Does anyone think that the Washington Post will not goose step in tandem with Obama on his Health Care Bill???
In addition, anyone with $250,000 to throw around this year can get a hearing directly from the Obama people with the money going to Obama’s favorite charity. Make no mistake this is not about influencing Obama. This is about buying favorable press in the Washington Post for the industry regardless of their position on the issues.
Washington insiders and lobbyists are paid big bucks to understand the realities of Washington Politics and they all know that the die is already cast on this issue vis a vis the Washington Post. And Make no mistake this effort was aimed at those who are opposed to the Obama’s plans but not limited to those who are only interested in Health Care.
No, this is an attempt by the Washington Post to get in on what they see as the gravy train heretofore reserved only for elected officials. After all lobbyists giving money to individual Congress members can only gain favor with one of 435. But, gaining favor with The Washington Post might warrant stories worth dozens of votes and widespread favorable coverage on a host of issues. One should not underestimate the arrogance of the news media in all this. While elected officials are raking in millions from lobbyists the venerable Post is losing its shirt. How unjust is that!!??
How will this play out???
Those firms that Pay to play but oppose Obamacare will be described as “offering reasoned alternatives to the single player plan”. Those who refuse to the Post’s blackmail attempt will be labeled as “Ideologues opposed to any concept of Health Care reform and refusing to provide help to the neediest among us.” This will be in news stories and not just editorials.
While the Post’s invitation does not read as “play ball with us or else “ ultimatum, any insider can read between the lines. As Katharine Weymouth admits, there will be many more “Salons” on many other issues. One can easily predict the Washington Post take on these issues beforehand and a favorable take on opposition is worth more than the $25,000 buy in.
My predictions:
1. Either no one is found responsible for this incident or a low level staffer in the business department will be exposed. The low level staffer will receive some sort of unspecified reprimand.
2. The future “Salons” will go on however no one will be dumb enough to send out a blanket flier. Instead folks will be “encouraged” individually to make donations to Weymouth for the “obvious costs” of hosting these “necessary exercises in off the record discussions”
3. In the interest of maintaining “candor in the off the record discussions” the Washington Post will necessarily refuse to disclose the attendees of the upcoming Salons.
Speaking of Washington newspapers, it the Washington Times still owned by the Unification Church Rev. Sun Myung Moon? The liberal Post has a much bigger circulation than the conservative Times, but Reverend Moon has been quoted as saying he has put almost a Billion$ into the money losing Times and intends to keep it the conservative alternative to the Post.
Australian Rupert Murdock has made similar vows to devote his fortune and media empire to the conservative cause. He hired Roger Ailes Ronald Reagan and Rudy Gulianni media man to run FOX.
So yes the politics of the media are more and more money driven. This thing with the Post takes it in a new direction.
All of the top ten News shows are on Fox. Even the 9am show beets the prime time of the other networks. The WSJ has excellent circulation. The Fox network is number 1. I guess Murdock is doing alright, Think123. I am all for different sides being represented. We are at our best when we have a vibrant media with a number of perspectives.
I think that you missed the point that TW drove right out of the park. The Washington Post had its greatest moment standing up to a corrupt power establishment. Now it is reduced to selling access to the power establishment. How the mighty have fallen.
David, my understanding is that NBC, CBS, ABC, all attract far larger audiences for TV News than Fox. So be careful talking about how big Fox is, pretty soon you will have it positioned as “mainstream media”. I wrote mainly because every time I read conservatives downing the “rabidly liberal” Washington Post I think two things:
First, the person must never read the Washington Post, and probably gets the mindset from watching and listening then parroting rightwing talk.
Second, imagine the premier conservative newspaper and well as the premier conservative TV News channel both being the creation of foreigners. Washington Times being from Korea, Fox from Australia. Both funded for the purpose of influencing Americans to their way of thinking. Funny how a super rich Korean and a super rich Australian could come to have so much influence on American health care policy. So it is kind of strange dinner parties with Post writers would seem like such an outrage.
Your understanding of TV ratings is incorrect. The other cable networks are your comparison. FoxNews is now what second in the ratings. Disney is down and USA is in sites. When it comes to cable news, you can combine any two of them and usually three of them and not get the popularity of FOX.
First of all the news portion of the broadcast networks is concentrated into a very short time frame. It is a half hour and a news magazine. A news network is about viewers popping in and out throughout the day. Even with that comparison, the Factor gets more viewers on its showings (east and west) than CBS and lately ABC. The network makes a good deal of money, you were implying that it some donation. The total viewers are very high and they watch regularly. As I said, the top ten cable news programs are all FOX News. The top weekend cable news program is Huckabee. He gets more total viewers than 20/20. Naturally, we compare cable with cable for ratings. I do think it is interesting that news is now drawing on a par with entertainment. That is a good sign.
There is now a Moon laid the ground work for an experienced cadre of conservative journalists. By the way he was smart enough to stay away from the paper. As for the foreign influence angle, we are a nation of immigrants. Most conservatives celebrate legal immigration as a source of strength. That is not an issue for most conservatives, it is an issue in liberal minds for conservatives because liberals believe their own caricatures.
I still think that somehow you are missing the point of the post. The Washington Post now wants to be in the business of selling access to power and access to its coverage. Isn’t that odd?
I developed a general disdain for television when only network shows were available. I had utter contempt for the avuncular bias of Walter Cronkite and would never watch a ‘comedy’ with a laugh track for people who needed a guide as to what was funny.
Cable and VCRs brought me back and the VCR has been replaced by the DVD player. Over-the-air broadcasts from network affiliates has an advantage over cable since not all homes are wired. I have not listened to a network show in years.
I do read a daily paper that is delivered with my WSJ. The WSJ provides a lot more than mere business news and it can be a real bargain.
I once subscribed to the WaPo and do not have to dredge up any second hand opinions about their bias. While some make a big deal about the ownership of the Washington Times, remember that one family controls the WaPo in spite of a minority ownership of the stock. The same goes for the NYT.
Art, sure all the papers and media have their bias. I think it’s bad for the brain to watch only the stuff that feeds our own bias. What is the difference between the Government limiting what news we get, and us limiting it ourselves by refusing to watch opposition media?
The New York Times was started before the Civil War. It’s a mistake to encourage people to think this American institution is un-American simply because you will often read things that conflict with your personal opinion. The process of seeking out all sides is what learning is about. The Soviets had one opinion in the media, why do that to yourself?
David, you said Fox is number one in news (you did not say cable) and Factor gets more viewers than ABC. Both incorrect. If you have different numbers, show em.
By the way, if you just watch Fox and read the WSJ, then all you get is the Murdoch view of things. What would Orwell say if he knew if people would brainwash themselves without any help from Big Brother? Murdoch hooks ya with all the pretty blondes and grisly murders, then socks ya in the brain with his political education.
I do agree with you that Rev. Moon, the Moonies, and Murdoch have done good things for the conservative movement.
I challenge anyone to read the WSJ and not find it delightful and often contrarian on a wide variety of subjects.
There is a certain ideological split between the news pages and the editorial pages and thinking people with a wide range of interests might enjoy feature articles such as the recent one on how many flowers got their names, from dandelions and marigolds to zinnias. Topics from archeology to zoology appear and they do add to the store of knowledge. There is even a vestige of a sports section.
Think123: The Soviets had one opinion in the media, why do that to yourself?
I wonder what variety of reading the writer of the above statement chooses to experience. One should never limit onself to a single publication or point of view. I learned very early about slanted articles and never forgot. Reading articles and editorials about myself was mere frosting on the cake.
Soviet propaganda in the 1930s was repackaged by ace reporter Walter Duranty and presented as news by the NYT. This traffic in lies won a Pulitzer Prize. It was never rescinded.
A WaPo reporter did a series called “Jimmy’s World” that also won a Pulitzer. The heart-rending tale of a young heroin addict (described in precise detail) made a lot of caring people want to help. It was all lies but some people in high places wanted to rehabilitate the fraudstress.
Wow, I m flattered by this response on a holiday weekend. I just got back from my weekend activities and am amazed that there were any comments.
It appears to me that think 123′s reading comprehension skills are as weak as his reasoning skills. My contentions in my post were that:
1. The Washington Post got caught in a shake down exercise of the worst kind.
2. The mainstream media will give the Washington Post cover for this because thay are the mouthpiece of the DNC.
What Fox News has to do with any of this is a figment of someone’s imagination.
As soon as some liberal poster can give me an example of Fox News sponsoring for lobbyists promised access to the President and his staff for $250,000 (and they have 8 years of the Bush administration to comb thru) , then I will look at the comparisons and respond accordingly. Until then can we actually look at my actual post and not some rant about Fox News????
Remember that the WaPo is a public corporation in which only a family clique has any say in management.
The family had an agenda. Yet the seeming success of the agenda has not been mirrored in profitability. The paper is slimming down to cut costs but how far can they go? The Baltimore Sun is often falling on hard times as a result of an ideological disconnect between the local residents who choose to read and what appears on the news and editorial pages. Sometimes the line is rather blurred.
Open selling of access may not have been such a good PR move and the crowd centered around 20th & K may not have been that eager to pony up the cash.
This may be the biggest WaPo blunder since “Jimmy’s World”.
Tennesee, don’t be too hard on me, just trying to breath some life into the old blog here. My reading and reasoning skills are okay, good enough for this I think. I told you I understand what you are saying: The WaPo sucks with the rest of the not Fox media.
My message is – the right wing has this paranoia about the left wing “mainstream media”. This so called mainstream media consists of anything outside Fox, WSJ, and Limbaugh. The rest of our national media is a pack of left wing lies. It’s the old “real Americans vs the others”.
The Soviet propaganda in the NYT during the Cold War was in fact the actual world view of the Soviet Union. In American, unlike the Soviet Union, we are able to read enemy propaganda. It is called a free press, not a pro-American press.
Surprising how back in 1972, during the height of Vietnam, when there was only “mainstream media”, conservative Nixon beat liberal McGovern by the biggest landslide in history. Wonder how us poor slobs knew what was up? From CBS,NBC,ABC? That’s all there was. Walter Cronkite et al. How did we ever learn the truth?
Several of my friends say they can’t stand ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, The NYT, or WaPo. They call CNN the Communist News Network. All they watch is FOX. When I mention Public Broadcasting or the New York Times, these good people look shocked anyone would watch that crap. I have been around a long time, never saw this degree of self brainwashing.
Now my friend Tennesee here is a perfect example. He says the “mainstream media” is the mouthpiece for the DNC, but he never says what he means: The “mainstream media” is every thing in the USA other than Fox and the WSJ. Murdoch’s New Corporation is the only thing you can trust in America?
Which gets me back to the blank eyed, single minded people George Orwell wrote about. I write about this stuff because as a Republican I wonder why our Party has fallen so low. I think the childish intolerant view of the media make us look stupid.
Think 123, first let me thank you for taking the time to respond to me. I have done enough public events to know that an unappreciative audience is usually better than no audience at all.
I must reiterate my prior view that you have no idea what I was posting about. Whether this is due to your lack or reading skills or my inability to write more clearly I will leave up to others but My point was not that “the Wahington Post Sucks or is biased etc., etc.” If this had been my point then I would have simply directed anyone towards Bernard Goldberg or Brent Bozell who do a much better job documenting the left wing bias of media outlets than my humble skills allow.
My post was made to emphasize that the Washington Post went beyond media bias and into the realm of soliciting money for subsequent favorable press treatment for those willing to pay up to $250,000 per year. My direct criticism of media outlets was due to my anticipation that none of them would ask the hard questions as to what one could expect for a $250,000 donation. After all I could give a $250.000 donation directly to the Obama crew and get an afternoon with Rahm Emmanuel discussing the best ways to house train puppies.
It’s interesting that you seize on one admittedly provactive description of certain media outlets to vent what is truly on your mind. We do not know each other but based on one phrase you typecast and stereotype me. Most folks would wait for 5 or more articles before demonstrating that type of knee jerk reaction.
Rest assured I do read the NYT and Wash. Post and at times the New Republic. I am not sure that makes me better informed. It does show me what others are thinking.
Cool.
Thank you Think123, in the original comment I did mean to say cable news and did in subsequent comments. As I said, you have to combine the east and west ratings to get an accurate ratings. After all the network news casts are done that way automatically. I could link the ratings average the end of June which showed a fall off of ABC, but you already conceded CBS so I think the point is made. The point is that it is a definite player on an equal footing not something hanging on because Murdock is tossing money into it.
I thank you for recognizing that it is a side issue. I understand that the Washington Times is losing money and the Washington Post is as well. The point of this post was not that papers are losing money. It was what one paper did that is so unusual.
I agree with T. W. reading the WaPo and the like does not make one better informed 90% of the time, but that 10% keeps me coming back. I am sure that you notice that I link to the WaPo almost as often as I do the WSJ.
Thanks for dropping by Think123.
David, I do declare that if you just got back from charm school it sure do show. I like the new tude. Thanks.