Politico.com has posted the response it got from the Washington Post.
The new posting reads:
The Washington Post has now responded to POLITICO’s report this morning that the paper is arranging salons for lobbyists at the home of publisher Katharine Weymouth, events that would include Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the staffers.
The solicitation — with costs between $25,000 to $250,000 — was listed on a flier that circulated to a lobbyist, who later passed it along to POLITICO.
Post spokesperson Kris Coratti has now sent the following statement to POLITICO:
The flier circulated this morning came out of a business division for conferences and events, and the newsroom was unaware of such communication. It went out before it was properly vetted, and this draft does not represent what the company’s vision for these dinners are, which is meant to be an independent, policy-oriented event for newsmakers.
As written, the newsroom could not participate in an event like this.
We do believe there is an opportunity to have a conferences and events business, and that The Post should be leading these conversations in Washington, big or small, while maintaining journalistic integrity. The newsroom will participate where appropriate.
Wow. More assaults on the firewall between bean-counters and editorial. What would have happened if Politico.com hadn’t reported this?
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
RKB
July 2, 2009 at 1:04 pmmaintaining journalistic integrity costs between $25,000 to $250,000, part of that fee I’m sure goes to maintaining the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing policy. The WPost is honest in the same sense a politician is -once bought, stays bought.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like