I've been watching with fascination the uproar
surrounding Washington Post publisher
Katharine Weymouth's attempt to raise money for her struggling newspaper by
hosting a salon series at her home that featured the newspaper's journalists -
including its host, editor Marcus Brauchli and government officials. The
price of admission for this series was a steep $25,000 per salon or $250,000 for
the series and the target audience was lobbyists and corporate
executives.
Most interestingly, the coverage of the mistake by the Post's young
publisher has taken on a life of its own. The actual details of what the
salon was intended to do seem to be lost now. What is causing major
umbrage is the implication that the Post reporters were for sale and the rich
and privileged were buying their way into coverage or at least influence over
key reporters. I can't tell either the intended size of this well-heeled
audience -- that is, whether the salon was a large table gathering or
several hundred guests.
As a former journalist and a long-time PR consultant who often has
represented the less well-funded competitor in a tough market, I cringe at the
suggestion that any journalist or publication is for sale to the highest bidder
or largest advertiser. But as a business person who understands the need
to run a profitable business, I understand what Weymouth was trying to accomplish.
When
I was a journalist in the tech market, I often would be introduced to
advertisers at luncheons at major conferences. Many of the publications
still do these occasional road shows of editors that involve brief one-on-ones
with the advertisers. I was never expected to write about those
advertisers unless they had a good story to tell. I was just asked to
meet them, which I thought was annoying, but reasonable. We journalist
captives used to joke about these shrimp and smoked salmon events -- at least
the food was good and occasionally we'd uncover a good story or a great contact
for a future story. No ethical lines were crossed.
At major executive conferences that are sometimes run by publications,
invitation-only attendees pay high fees (not $25,000 high, of course) to have
access to presentations by news-making companies and executives as well as to
rub shoulders with key journalists and bloggers. Again, no one is forced
to write anything. The journalists attending often band together for
protection from the mobs. But they also have free access to information,
sources and people who could be useful to them. Again, the ethical line
is not crossed.
I think a number of mistakes were made with this situation, but I honestly
don't believe it was an attempt to sell the editorial staff.
The biggest mistakes (in my opinion) were the high price tag, which made this
salon uber-selective; the location at Weymouth's home, which made this seem very
insider; calling it a salon, which suggests an invitation-only free event and
not a pay-as-you-go meeting; and Weymouth's own visibility as a descendant of
Katharine Graham. Let's take these one at a time.
Price tag: Let's assume the
Post was letting a fairly large group of high-paying people in for what was
essentially a high level executive conference with the intention of a discussion
with the political newsmakers moderated by staff journalists. The
journalists may have been fair game for lobbyists or corporate guests to accost
with ideas for stories about them or their companies. But no one was
going to make them write. So aside from the price tag, what's the big
difference between this and an executive conference that some of the Washington
Post's competitors might hold? They charge attendees a hefty fee and also
accept sponsorships.
Location: If this same
conference -- okay, salon -- had been priced differently and held at an upscale
Washington hotel -- would there have been the same reaction? I don't think so.
Salon: Some of the coverage noted
that Weymouth might have been trying to replicate her grandmother's famous dinner parties,
which people were thrilled to be included in. Certainly salons have been
held by many pundits and important people over the years and being asked to
participate has been considered an honor and a privilege. What was being
planned here sounds more like a high-level conference or seminar series - with
a stiff price tag - and not an intimate gathering of important people whose
very presence is usually considered their payment.
Weymouth's visibility: If Weymouth had not just
completed a publicity tour of her own with articles I read during my own recent
vacation in magazines like Vogue,
would this have raised people's ire as much? I must admit that when I saw Weymouth on
stage with Arianna Huffington at the All Things Digital conference in May --
where they seemed to have quite a love-fest going for two competitors for ad
dollars and publicity -- I wondered whether this example of nepotism was the
right move for this newspaper. Hearing her at the conference and reading
more about her since then, which may or may not have been a strategy of the
Post, I got a good sense of her capabilities and assumed that this is a family
committed to this newspaper who felt she had what it took to take it
forward. But I have to think that she's probably taking more lumps on
this gaffe than someone who wasn't related to Katharine Graham would be taking.
In a journalism environment where BusinessWeek is for sale and publications are dropping like flies, I applaud the efforts of
companies and publishers to try to keep them alive with new revenue
opportunities. I certainly don't want the journalists' ethics to be
compromised in the process. I guess I question whether this was the
intention of this salon series in the first place. The current blur of
coverage, where the real truth gets covered quickly by opinions, attacks and
assumptions makes it hard to make a clear assessment. The quick cancellation
of the event seems to show that it was not as well thought out as it should
have been, but was more an approach to keep the paper afloat during a difficult
time.
So here's hoping Weymouth doesn't shy away from trying other more prudent approaches to raise revenue
during this difficult time for newspapers and magazines.
