Katharine Weymouth, publisher of the Washington Post, issued a "Letter To Our Readers" mea culpa for the now infamous "pay to play" or "access of evil" invitation to lobbyists and powerbrokers at Ms. Weymouth's own home. Apparently someone in the Post's marketing department sent out this invitation with proper authorization -- what a cheeky fellow, offering the Publishers own home for parties without her knowledge! Of course, Ms. Weymouth never says she was unaware that the event would be held at her own home. Nor does she tell us she was unaware that the price for attending such soiree was $25,000 and up, a sum certain to assure the event would not be overrun with riffraff.
In fact, very little is clear in Ms. Weymouth's letter to her readers. The letter's studied, exquisitely crafted ambiguity is the hallmark of legal drafting (we lawyers don't "write", we "draft") and there can be no doubt that Ms. Weymouth's letter was the work of her lawyers. Of course, Ms. Weymouth is counting on the fact that newspaper readers will read this letter with a reader's eye, not a lawyer's eye.
Let me lend you one lawyer's eye, and give you a lawyer's takeaway on Ms. Weymouth's letter.
"Our mistake was to suggest that we would hold and participate in an off-the-record dinner with journalists and power brokers paid for by a sponsor. We will not organize such events."
Hmm. Was the mistake the intention to "hold" such events, "participate" in them, or "organize" them? It's unclear. The Post agrees only to refrain from organizing "off-the-record" dinners with journalists and power brokers. Presumably, the Post reserves the right to organize "on-the-record" dinners restricted to big money lobbyists and special pleaders. Ms. Weymouth has more to say regarding her understanding of "off the record" later in her letter, so we'll set that aside for a moment.
Regarding the nature of the Post's mistake, I would suggest that the "off-the-record" nature of the event was the least of the problems. It wasn't the terms on which Post reporters would have access to the Big Boys, it was the terms on which the Big Boys would have access to the Post's reporting staff. Indeed, I would imagine the Post would of course keep any event in which powerbrokers paid for the opportunity to influence the Post's coverage of critical issues "off-the-record." After all, it could prove embarrassing.
"From the outset, we laid down firm parameters to ensure that these events would be consistent with The Post's values. If the events were to be sponsored by other companies, everything would be at arm's length -- sponsors would have no control over the content of the discussions, and no special access to our journalists."
Thus begins Ms. Weymouth's attempt to tell us more precisely what the Washington Post will not do, and to explain to us why we should be reassured that the Post's journalistic integrity is not for sale. She assures us that companies that sponsor these events (let's say, for example, major advertisers at the Washington Post, perhaps) will have no special access to the Post's journalists. I assume Ms. Weymouth meant to say "no special access other than the access inherent in any very small gathering of people who have paid tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend. If the access isn't "special", why would the Big Boys be ponying up the Big Bucks?
"If our reporters were to participate, there would be no limits on what they could ask. They would have full access to participants and be able to use any information or ideas to further their knowledge and understanding of any issues under discussion. They would not be asked to invite other participants and would serve only as moderators."
"No limit on what they [i.e., Post reporters] could ask" - that sounds good, I suppose, but again, the issue isn't the nature of the journalist's access to the Big Boys, it's the nature of the Big Boys special access to Post journalists. Ditto for the promise that Post reporters would have full access to participants - Ms. Weymouth is again confused as to which way the access flows. Does Ms. Weymouth really believe that the Big Boys are graciously paying $25,000 and up so that Post reporters can have access to them?
We finally get to Ms. Weymouth's idea of what she meant at the beginning of her letter when when she implied that any such event would not be "off-the-record": Post reporters would "be able to use any information or ideas to further their knowledge and understanding of any issues under discussion."
Uh, Ms. Weymouth, you just gave us the definition of "off-the-record". Indeed, the whole purpose of "off-the-record" interviews is to give reporters information the specifics of which will not be reported and will not be attributed, but will permit reporters to deepen their "knowledge and understanding" of the issues. Ms. Weymouth began her mea culpa by admitting that offering "off-the-record" access was a mistake, and then promises that such access will be off-the-record. This goes beyond incoherence; it is practiced sophistry.
Further, any conferences or similar events The Post sponsors will be on the record.
Given Ms. Weymouth's apparent confusion over the concept of "on the record", this isn't very reassuring. And given her previous statement that Post reporters would be able to only "use any information or ideas", as opposed to REPORTING such information, her "on the record" promise is off the mark.
What is most remarkable about Ms. Weymouth's mea culpa is what it completely failed to say. It didn't promise that these events would not be "pay to play". It didn't explain how events with a limited number of attendees and huge attendance fees does not constitute special access to Post reporters. And it doesn't give any assurance that the Post will not financially benefit by either receiving proceeds from these attendance fees or permitting the Post's advertisers to financially benefit from these fees with the Post's help (in effect a nice little "kickback" from the Post to big advertisers).
Ms. Weymouth's letter evinces a profound misunderstanding of the concerns expressed by its readers, by other journalists and newspapers, and by the Post's own reporters. The concern, Ms. Weymouth, is that only the Big Boys will have the opportunity to give their point of view to Post reporters and to influence the Post's coverage of the issues that have such huge financial stakes for the Big Boys. The concern, Ms. Weymouth, is that the Post's news coverage will be influenced not by the full spectrum of views and information, but will be disproportionately influenced by the views of those who have the dollars and incentive to buttonhole your reporters at your Georgetown soirees.
If this is the best that Ms. Weymouth and her lawyers could do in response to a scandal that threatens to destroy the Post's sole journalistic currency - it's reputation for objective reporting - then it is plain that Ms. Weymouth doesn't understand what is at stake. The Post's readers needed Ms. Weymouth to forthrightly issue a Declaration of Independence with respect to the Post's reporting. Instead, they received a letter from her lawyers, as if the Post's readers had sued the Post, or had slipped on a banana peel in the Post's newsroom.
I would urge Ms. Weymouth to try again and to ask her editors, not her lawyers, to help her write another letter to the Post's readers. Because this first letter was nothing more than a calculated exercise in deception worthy of the neocon warmongers who dominate the Post's editorial pages. It is nothing less than a "fuck you" to the Post's readers.