Washington Post ombudsman explains the "salon" scandal
This is an interesting piece from The Washington Post ombudsman on the "salon" scandal.
Ombudsman Andrew Alexander spells out the conflicts inherent in offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to "those powerful few" including reporters and editors for a fee, as much as $25,000. Alexander concludes that the "episode has left a scar that will be visible for years, and it has badly shaken the newsroom."
Still shocking to me is that no on spoke up as the events were being planned.
Neither Publisher Katharine Weymouth nor Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli can recall anyone raising concerns, although both say they wish someone had. Several lower down in the newsroom say they didn't speak up because "they assumed top managers would eventually ensure that traditional ethics boundaries would not be breached."
Plans went ahead until a lobbyist handed a leaflet for the event to (non-Post) reporters. And on June 2, Politico.com reported on the salons.
Somewhat arrogantly, Alexander explains to the reader that "Historically at quality newspapers such as The Post, a firewall exists between the business and news departments to ensure editorial integrity and independence."
Well, those firewalls exist at far less grand newspapers than the post. What is still shocking to me is that no one from the newsroom questioned the idea of the salons during the weeks they were being organized.
But the good news is that The Post does have an ombudsman who gave us an insiders' look at the scandal. Andrew Alexander is just one in a long line of veteran journalists hired from outside The Post to keep an eye on how the paper is doing and respond to disgruntled readers.
He began his job in February. I'm sure he got more than he bargained for.
Comments [0]