Cheat Sheet
The Best In Brief
WaPo Scandal Heralds Old Media Demise?
Nothing like a media scandal to get the fingers pointing. Last week Politico slapped down an ill-advised Washington Post initiative to sell $25,000 tickets to lobbyists for access to "salons" featuring Congressman, reporters, and White House officials. WaPo took their invitations back—but not before New York Times business columnist David Carr could note "you can't buy Washington Post reporters, but you can rent them." In a July 4 column, Carr says the blame lies with Katharine Weymouth, the Post's "relatively new publisher" and granddaughter of legendary Post publisher Katharine Graham. Carr writes that not only has Weymouth spit into the face of the Post's history of uncovering and combatting moneyed corruption in DC, but worse: Weymouth as "a tin ear to newsroom dynamics." Carr details how Weymouth insults and alienates her newsroom regularly, apparently unaware that "the newsroom remains a paper's biggest asset. And you cannot afford to lose them." That Politico broke the story of WaPo's ethics breach is insult to injury, says Carr: "Started by two former Post reporters, Politico has become a serious competitor... much of the remaining competitive edge for the [old] legacy media derives from a perception that they adhere to more rigorous publishing standards. Oops."
Partner Sites: Expedia| Hotels| Hotwire| Urbanspoon| Vimeo
So the WaPo and the liberal media are whores who will sell "access" to the highest bidder?
So the WaPo and the liberal media is biased and in the tank for Obama and the dems?
So -- tell us something we didn't already know.
Happy Fourth of July!!!
The 'liberal media'. What a moron. Are you just stupid and believe that or are you that intellectually dishonest? Either way, you are an ass-clown.
The media is not in the tank for a specific party. They are in the tank for any incumbent. Or haven't you noticed?
Plant is not a moron! The media is in the tank for whoever has he money, steps into the limelight and wants to get a message out. Hear any of the GOP out there? Whose got the money now? Just think about it.
GM, are you an idiot on all pages or just this one ?
Malicious-
If you are going to continue
Posting the same three comments-
I suggest you start to shuffle them
With a little more frequency.
It has been years and years since the WaPo was considered liberal. Sorry Plantagenet. You are never able to back up your bs. The WaPo died with Katharine Graham, and I am here to tell you that as a resident of WDC born and raised and no longer a spring chicken.
Maybe people in DC don't realize or see things the way the rest of the country does. DC is a country all it's own, rather like California! LOL
Oh come on now Squiggy. The gop gets their fair share of headlines. Too bad it usually involves infidelity lately.
The term "liberal media" cracks me up every time I hear it. I don't know who came up with it but I'm sure they wished they had trademarked it. It seems that whenever someone is getting bad press, they blame the media.
A hiking trip on some trail? Come on....you can't make this crap up man!
Lot's of headlines, political fall, celebrity demise, etc but we aren't hearing hard hitting questions about policy and intent! No one is questioning or researching anything remotely connected to economics, other than those who seem to understand what Obama is doing and that leaves a big space for question!
Sorry, squiggy, but a hiking trip on some trail is a better story than talking about the intricacies of shifting aggregate demand to combat recession. For better or worse, the media covers stories that are grandiose, interesting, etc. Like when Pres. Obama was in Germany and Sen. McCain was in a grocery store in New England, and people were complaining that Pres. Obama's getting unfair attention?
Watch "Good Night and Good Luck" - it shows you what happens when Edward Murrow tried to get in-depth on political issues - he had his career wrecked.
Do you prefer "slanted, biased media"? Anyone who can't see the liberal slant that has been quantified again and again is just being an asshat.
The word newswhore comes to mind. But that would only be half right, wouldn't it?
Exactly! They go where and with who the money flows!
AH no different than the "HOOKER" standing on the corner waiting for the john to pull up.Well weymouth got her first John (lobbyist) no doubt.
The story got me thinking about the fact that a healthy society rightfully does not like nepotism in its important institutions. One problem in US politics is the increasing tendency for rich families to regard high office as their birthright and build up a vast system of patronage to ensure that each generation of the family is secure. One only has to think of the Kennedy's and the Bushes, but there are many more at all levels. News media is often called the 'Fourth Estate' and for good reason since they wield influence on public policy at least as great as Congress, the Presidency, and the courts.
We all knew that the only reason George Bush Junior got to Harvard business school was because of his family connections (and he is not stupid just that in a fair selection process he would not have made the cut given the huge number of very bright people who apply), he also effectively got eventually to be President due to family power within Texas and the GOP. Rightly so, we all have a certain worry about this sort of thing in supposedly democratic America.
Here we have a major newspaper of record run by a family. We are told that the newspaper is now run by the granddaughter of the original publisher and that Katharine Weymouth is a "Harvard educated lawyer". Given the way Harvard (and other Ivy league universities) bend over when dealing with rich families, one wonders whether in her case that means as much as it should in a world where Harvard Law School was blind to the super rich who put millions into its endowment in order to ensure the undivided attention of the university president. Its clear that she has no experience of reporting, or investigative journalism. Why is she running the paper? The answer is that her family owns it, and by inference they own the news we will hear, a situation dear to the heart of all elites.
eroteme, this is a very interesting post. thank you
This user is no longer registered.
You talk about "old media demise" and cite the NY Times to prove it?
The Washington Post is a liberal publication. If they would stop trying to portray themselves as an objective news organization and announce that from now on they are a liberal publication, they would hit their demographic niche, like Mother Jones Magazine. Of course, they would have to downsize, but they would survive because the people who want to read liberal opinion would buy their paper. Same thing with any newspaper: If you're liberal, say it. The same thing goes for conservative papers. People don't like it when a paper claims it is unbiased, when in fact, it is extremely biased -- one way or the other.
And anyone on this website who questions the demise of the old media, better look around. We are on a website named the Daily Beast. We are on the web. It is interactive. We can instantly share our thoughts on the news and tell the editors what we think. And there are no ink stains on our fingers.
Why do people keep saying the WaPo is liberal. I can see that argument for the NY Times but the WaPo is decidedly conservative in their coverage, their newsroom, their slant, etc...
Is this just the assumption that all the major newspapers must be liberal, because its completely divorced from reality.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.