What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
79 Comments
- temptxan, on 07/02/2009, -1/+46Katherine Graham would be appalled! Fred Hiatt has killed any credibility the WaPo once had.
- metuchendude, on 07/02/2009, -2/+27Blecccccchh! Rent a reporter for the highest bidder! I hope the reporters mutiny over this sort of nonsense!
- bellasmom2, on 07/02/2009, -18/+42I believe it is official. The media is now the White House whores.
- booksnmore4you, on 07/02/2009, -1/+22FTA
And it's a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.
/FTA - Troika37, on 07/02/2009, -29/+48Can you IMAGINE the outrage if they had sold access to Bush!
Since this is Obama, we won't hear much more about it. - johnlabmonkey, on 07/02/2009, -10/+28This is a WaPo plan to raise money, I see no evidence that Obama or "those powerful few" had anything to do with it. Sound like a typical beltway dinner party with the exception that the WaPo is selling tickets. People trying to make the Post seem "liberal" are either ignorant or hopelessly partisan.
- Wetzilla, on 07/02/2009, -8/+25Except this had nothing to do with this administration, unless something changed and Obama purchased the Washington Post.
- inactive, on 07/02/2009, -10/+27I wish I could say I was shocked by this.
- Juris2, on 07/02/2009, -5/+20WaPo -- WTF? Such desperation!
- mnocket, on 07/02/2009, -9/+20Need I say it? Journalism is dead!
- Hortnon, on 07/02/2009, -8/+19It would be foolish to believe they only just started this practice, or that they are the only ones.
- motbob, on 07/02/2009, -8/+17WTF are you guys talking about... the Post isn't selling access to the White House, it's selling to lobbyists.
- JordanTW90, on 07/02/2009, -1/+10Credibility = 0.
- nathanbutnet, on 07/02/2009, -4/+13Far be it from me to question folks questioning the administration, but I am not sure how this is a story that merits comments about the Obama administration so much as a story that merits a lot of comments about the state of our fourth estate.
- spifffan, on 07/02/2009, -8/+16Actually this is very reminiscent of W's administration paying Armstrong Williams to write favorable columns. Just disgusting. Hope and change, eh?
- mobedda, on 07/02/2009, -12/+20Thank heavens I smelled a rat and stopped reading this rag when they had Glenn Beck on their front page. Stick a fork in this turkey....
- Stormwern, on 07/02/2009, -0/+7Pretty much exactly that happened less than a year ago actually.
http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2008/07/major ... - stackolee, on 07/02/2009, -4/+11I tried to register outrage when Obama planted questions (sort-of) in press conferences, because its technically wrong even if the question was pretty mild. But with the news industry selling its soul for pittance, I find it harder and harder to give any sympathy what so ever.
- DanThePainter, on 07/02/2009, -18/+24The corruption is not for old fashioned greed, but a lust for power. The Administration wants control over an ever increasing set of aspects of our lives.
- brainboy7777, on 07/02/2009, -2/+8What happened to the WaPo of Woodward and Bernstein?
- Wetzilla, on 07/02/2009, -4/+9No, I don't. And unless you have any evidence to the contrary, that's the way it is.
- BeefEnchilada, on 07/02/2009, -1/+5They haven't, relax.
- donttrip700, on 07/02/2009, -1/+5Yea, he's right. I've lived in DC all of my life, and that's just the way things go here. This is really just an EXTREMELY poorly thought-out fundraiser that a well-meaning but not very thoughtful publisher dreamed up. And no, I have never been associated with anyone who could be considered a "lobbyist".
- kingnova, on 07/02/2009, -1/+5It's not Obama, it is the Washington Post. I'm not sure why that is hard for you to figure out.
- twitch14, on 07/02/2009, -11/+15And just what makes you think the Washington Post is "liberal"? Ever read a Fred Hiatt op-ed? Ever look at who gets ink on their opinion pages? Seen how much they played cheerleader for the Bush Administration on, oh, everything?
The Post hasn't been anywhere close to liberal for decades. Try again, pal. - Wetzilla, on 07/02/2009, -0/+4I read it, still not seeing what the Obama administration had to do with it other than being invited to the "salon". Hell, I could do the same thing, doesn't mean they are involved.
- rpebble, on 07/02/2009, -0/+3So I get my real news from Google News for the most part.... http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7987328 ...
These showed up at the same time, I get the feeling that politico is a little behind the ball on this one, since according to the Post, *today*, this isn't going to happen. It's still ridiculous that it would have been an idea for them in the first place, but we can calm down a bit. - YWrite, on 07/02/2009, -3/+6The Washington Post...
Sounds like Katherine knew about this whole scheme from start to finish! She's just ticked off that the whole thing was made public. WaPo has become another name for MUD! - Charlotte_Web, on 07/02/2009, -21/+24The press and the presidency are one.
- Wetzilla, on 07/02/2009, -1/+4Actually this is nothing like that. The Obama administration wasn't paying anyone anything, and was only invited to this "salon" thing.
- FredFredrickson, on 07/02/2009, -6/+9Apparently you and a brain are not.
- kingnova, on 07/02/2009, -1/+4The article indicates some admin people were invited but none (that Gibbs knew of) had accepted.
It plays (to me) like WaPo planned to use the enticement carrot, then try to get people from the admin to join in.
Unless/until I see something come out that says the administration helped organize this, I am putting this pile of stinking ***** squarely in the newspaper's lap. - kingnova, on 07/02/2009, -0/+3I am stunned just reading that "we may not have followed all our guidelines". It's as if they don't really see this as a big deal, except it got publicity.
The article clearly says they plan to figure out a different way to go about the same thing as a revenue stream.
I give up. I haven't thought much of the media for years, but realizing that the only thing they see wrong with this is that it wasn't quite figured out "good enough" says it all.
I expect to see other newspapers doing the same thing going forward. - stackolee, on 07/02/2009, -2/+4What? They're selling access to lobbyists, not to the administration*. At the moment, there's high profile battles with the Obama administration against large special interests (Health Care, Cap and Trade, letting the FDA regulate tobacco, etc...).
* Although I hardly see them making the distinction of lobbyist vs politicians if the cash starts flowing. - inactive, on 07/02/2009, -1/+3Dead and buried long ago.
- motbob, on 07/02/2009, -3/+5I don't think you understand who this is targeted towards.
- mblake01, on 07/02/2009, -17/+19Sounds like the Chicago Political Fixers have become employee's at the Washington Compost!!!
Scum bucket suckers!!! - Wetzilla, on 07/02/2009, -2/+4Simply because they were invited and even if the accepted the invitation it doesn't mean that they knew seats were being sold to lobbyists so the Post could make money.
- spinchange, on 07/02/2009, -3/+4Except that the flier expressly promotes the fact that administration officials would be present and Robert Gibbs confirmed that officials were invited, "but did not respond" to the invitations yet....riiiiiigggghhhhtt.
- PJNagrom, on 07/02/2009, -14/+15State-run media anyone? These organizations are signing their own death warrant.
- nathanbutnet, on 07/02/2009, -1/+2Well, yep, exactly. You just made my point. Seems the commenting on the administration is a little ahead of itself at this point in the story and again: it seems the story right now is one of the few remaining major news organizations in our country was pimping itself out like a 2 dollar whore.
- Skywise, on 07/02/2009, -7/+8So you don't think the Obama Administration or the DNC had any idea that the Washington Post was selling access?
- thcobbs, on 07/02/2009, -2/+3Hope for other people's pocket change.
- FredFredrickson, on 07/02/2009, -6/+7Yeah, like we didn't see anything like that with Fox News during the last administration. But hey, it's okay if the wholesome, moral, and pious Republicans do it, right?
- ThraxyWaxy, on 07/02/2009, -1/+2FML, people actually care about newspapers?
- bunk995, on 07/02/2009, -2/+2Woodward gave up his credibility for access to the Bush White House. He is a disgrace.
- kingnova, on 07/02/2009, -2/+2@BBWolf
So if I can show you that this has happened before AND under Bush, will you apologize? - rheaume, on 07/02/2009, -4/+4Its politico. Drudge, Breibart and Politico all suck each other off after Sunday service
- donttrip700, on 07/02/2009, -1/+1Still there, they broke the Walter Reed story after months of investigation, remember? Woodward still has an office there, too. He's just never at work.
- spinchange, on 07/02/2009, -2/+2they are selling the lobbyists access to the administration officials, or their 'invited contacts' & themselves
-
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is