A Deo Lumen

I am glad to see Andrew Alexander, Washington Post Obmbudsman, state this about “A Sponsorship Scandal at the Post”:

The Washington Post’s ill-fated plan to sell sponsorships of off-the-record “salons” was an ethical lapse of monumental proportions.

Publisher Katharine Weymouth and Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli have now taken full responsibility for what was envisioned as a series of 11 intimate dinners to discuss public policy issues. For a fee of up to $25,000, underwriters were guaranteed a seat at the table with lawmakers, administration officials, think tank experts, business leaders and the heads of associations. Promotional materials said Weymouth, Brauchli and at least one Post reporter would serve as “Hosts and Discussion Leaders” for an evening of spirited but civil dialogue.

Here’s where all this impacts journalistic integrity:

Historically at quality newspapers such as The Post, a firewall exists between the business and news departments to ensure editorial integrity and independence. The Post has internal “Standards and Ethics” guidelines that stress the importance of newsroom neutrality.

The first line says: “This newspaper is pledged to avoid conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest, wherever and whenever possible.” Later, it states the newspaper “is committed to disclosing to its readers the sources of the information in its stories to the maximum possible extent.”

But the salon dinners ran counter to the spirit of both. By having outside underwriters, The Post was effectively charging for access to its newsroom personnel. Reporters or editors could easily be perceived as being in the debt of the sponsors. And by promising participants that their conversations would be private, those attending would be assured a measure of confidentiality that the news department typically opposes.

But, as is often the case with questionable actions, it is getting caught rather than experiencing personal conviction for wrongdoing that triggers critical reflection.

Weymouth and Brauchli came to realize all this was wrong — but only after the controversy erupted. In separate interviews this week, they acknowledged this with candor, regret and embarrassment.

I can only hope the Post’s leadership truly recognizes not that “mistakes were made” but “we were wrong.”  Trust in journalism is imperative.  This is yet another blow to a hallowed institution that, whether you disagree with its editorial biases or not, still fulfills a critical democratic function as a check-and-balance for the people against government overreach and tyranny.

But let us never be fooled into thinking that this institution, like any, could not be led by people inclined to participate in government overreach and tyranny, especially if its the only feasible way to stay financially afloat and maintain connections and influence within the present Washington power structure.