It’s astonishing that this was ever under serious consideration.
The [Washington] 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…. 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.
The July 21 event, focusing on health care reform, “guaranteed” a “collegial evening” with health industry advocates, Post journalists covering the field and administration officials involved with its policies.
At least WaPo had the good sense to cancel the thing when word leaked out.
Drop your ideas for awesome BMG fundraisers in the comments! đŸ˜‰
UPDATE: This was not just a misguided marketing executive getting ahead of himself. This came straight from the publisher, who is a lawyer and M.B.A. who apparently has no experience outside the business side of the organization. She is also, coincidentally no doubt, the granddaughter of Katharine Graham, the WaPo’s former publisher.
the blogosphere really needs to look at its ethics problem. Good idea, Dana.
Better to sell off their access and keep their jobs than to go bankrupt.
<
p>The fact is that print media has to reinvent its business. I agree this doesn’t seem like the best way to do it for a variety of reasons, but some credit has to be given to the people in the marketing department for at least trying.
<
p>It doesn’t look like classified ads are ever going to come back. The Internet has enormously devalued the information provided in the print product. Subscription models haven’t succeeded online.
<
p>How would you add a few million dollars to the Post’s bottom line this quarter?
I’ve worked places where someone tried to innovate away from the core business — usually, a type of fire sale, like reprints of older versions of publications dirt cheap. What’s wrong with that? The message it sends to your existing clients paying bigger bucks.
<
p>There’s nothing wrong with starting a new business, but you can’t cannibalize your existing business, and that’s what the Post did with its credibility.
<
p>The newspaper model has allowed plenty of wiggle room over the years. How about a special section about the Nationals, or some sort of fashion advertorial? A special section on pizza places? The good thing is, people are willing to allow papers to jump into bed with local businesses, since they are local businesses. But not the government.
<
p>
gave it initial tacit approval and then began the process of promoting it is a clear indication that the Washington Post is no longer a serious and disinterested observer and publisher of the “news”. They are now the official “organ” of the Obama administration. Another boil on the ass of America.
according to the NYT story, it’s the newsroom that killed the program — once they got wind of what the marketing folks had in mind, there was a near revolt, and the program was shut down. That actually cuts the other way, wouldn’t you say?
I sometimes feel that some people need to actually spend a week in a totalitarian country to know what an “official organ” actually sounds like. Hint: it does not sound like this:
<
p>
<
p>Mountaintop removal coal mining is the worst environmental tragedy in American history. When will the Obama administration finally stop this Appalachian apocalypse?
<
p>So let’s keep our rhetoric a little toned down, shall we?
The Obama administration is known for its love of Post columnists Charles Krauthammer, David Broder, Robert Kagan, George Will, and Dana Milbank.
On the part of almost ALL concerned.
<
p>First – what does it say about the Post that it was considering offering cozy paid-for access to parties they ought to be covering in an adversarial way?
<
p>WORSE – what does it say about the ADMINISTRATION that the Post was confident enough in its paid access scheme to get a price tag and possibly entree selection done?
<
p>Mr. Brauchli – exactly who did you expect to be on the menu with? Mr. Editor ought to be left on the hook until he explains who else had accepted this convivial invitition?m Because we’re not all that sure how HARD Mr. Gibbs checked to see who accepted those invitations.
<
p>The lobbyists I exempt. Their job is to do anything for anyone involving money.
<
p>Of course, here’s the most interesting line in the article:
<
p>
<
p>Yes, those pesky reporters and the way they blab. Has the lady returned Kaiser’s check, or is she simply using it as downpayment for the next ‘quieter’ soiree, free of the gauche openness of marketing personnel? After all, she’s established that she’s a whore – it seems to be only the price tag and call girl/hooker distinction that seems to be up in the air.
That’s an open question, we don’t know. It could have been one of dozens of dinners thrown by someone, and the assistant undersecretary of interior (in other words, almost nobody) could have gone and brought his date.
<
p>Until we know, I don’t think it’s fair to say it reflects on the entire administration. If they were getting Rahm Emanuel and Axelrod, that’s bad. Tres mal.
<
p>
I started the ball rolling on fundraising suggestions HERE!
She could have showed them how to pimp for profit.
There is always a market for instruction of that sort in the capital.
<
p>Pretty good đŸ˜‰