[MiNe 109]

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...70B2-A8FD90B34
E41BF57

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and
association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to
"those powerful few" ‹ Obama administration officials, members of
Congress, and the paper¹s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a
health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist
said he feels it¹s a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as
the flier says, its ³health care reporting and editorial staff."

The offer ‹ which essentially turns a news organization into a
facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters ‹ is a new sign of
the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a
time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

And it's a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington
Post for its ethical practices.

--

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 2, 12:38*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

I still want to know who are the members of congress and the
administration whoring their position to such an event.

I invite key people to my house for dinner. I offer you access to him
at that dinner I set up for $50,000. You show up, meet, have your talk
and leave. The key people have no idea about your payment to me. This
was a business idea for a paper, not a political fundraiser, dum-dum.

Why do you jump to the stupid conclusion that there's some kind of
conspiracy here?

What a ****ing numbskull.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 2, 4:09*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:54*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:38*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

I still want to know who are the members of congress and the
administration whoring their position to such an event.

I invite key people to my house for dinner. I offer you access to him
at that dinner I set up for $50,000. You show up, meet, have your talk
and leave. The key people have no idea about your payment to me. This
was a business idea for a paper, not a political fundraiser, dum-dum.

*So you're a pimp. And your "key people" are just innocent sluts. LoL.

LoL. You didn't read your own cite...again. LoL.

Why do you jump to the stupid conclusion that there's some kind of
conspiracy here?

*That or they're just really really stupid. That is plausible. LoL.

LoL. Well, it's very clear and obvious *someone* here is really,
really stupid... LoL.

"Weymouth said the paper had planned a series of dinners with
participation from the newsroom “but with parameters such that we did
not in any way compromise our integrity. Sponsorship of events, like
advertising in the newspaper, must be at arm's length and cannot imply
control over the content or access to our journalists. At this
juncture, we will not be holding the planned July dinner and we will
not hold salon dinners involving the newsroom. “

Brauchli said in an interview that he understood the business side of
the Post planned on holding dinners on policy and was scheduled to
attend the July 21 dinner at Weymouth’s Washington home, but he said
he had not seen the material promoting it until today. “The flier, and
the description of these things, was not at all consistent with the
preliminary conversations the newsroom had,” Brauchli said, adding
that it was “absolutely impossible” the newsroom would participate in
the kind of event described in the solicitation for the event.

[...]

Brauchli emphasized that the newsroom had given specific parameters to
the paper’s business staff that he said were apparently not followed.
He said that for newsroom staffers to participate, they would have to
be able to ask questions and that he would “reserve the right to allow
any information or ideas that emerge from an event to shape or inform
our coverage.” That directly contradicts the solicitation to potential
sponsors, which billed the dinner as “off-the-record.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...xzz0K8omWdTW&C

So you're also very upset about and opposed to businesses sponsoring
things like the republican national convention, etc. That must make
you really, REALLY mad!

Or you didn't read your own cite...again.

What a ninny.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jul 2, 3:54*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:38*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

I still want to know who are the members of congress and the
administration whoring their position to such an event.

I invite key people to my house for dinner. I offer you access to him
at that dinner I set up for $50,000. You show up, meet, have your talk
and leave. The key people have no idea about your payment to me. This
was a business idea for a paper, not a political fundraiser, dum-dum.

Why do you jump to the stupid conclusion that there's some kind of
conspiracy here?

What a ****ing numbskull.

I wonder if the Post reported these payments on their tax returns?

[Clyde Slick]

On Jul 2, 5:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:


"Weymouth said the paper had planned a series of dinners with
participation from the newsroom “but with parameters such that we did
not in any way compromise our integrity.

Charging for access "IS": compromising your integrity

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 2, 7:50*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 2, 5:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

"Weymouth said the paper had planned a series of dinners with
participation from the newsroom “but with parameters such that we did
not in any way compromise our integrity.

Charging for access "IS": compromising your integrity

Not in the context of sponsoring an event. If that's the case then
sponsoring dinners and things at national political conventions should
be illegal.

There was a disconnect between the marketing arm and the newsroom's
intent. End of story.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 2, 7:48*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 2, 3:54*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:38*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

I still want to know who are the members of congress and the
administration whoring their position to such an event.

I invite key people to my house for dinner. I offer you access to him
at that dinner I set up for $50,000. You show up, meet, have your talk
and leave. The key people have no idea about your payment to me. This
was a business idea for a paper, not a political fundraiser, dum-dum.

Why do you jump to the stupid conclusion that there's some kind of
conspiracy here?

What a ****ing numbskull.

I wonder if the Post reported these payments on their tax returns?

They never happened. They canceled the event.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jul 2, 9:07*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:48*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:



On Jul 2, 3:54*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:38*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

I still want to know who are the members of congress and the
administration whoring their position to such an event.

I invite key people to my house for dinner. I offer you access to him
at that dinner I set up for $50,000. You show up, meet, have your talk
and leave. The key people have no idea about your payment to me. This
was a business idea for a paper, not a political fundraiser, dum-dum.

Why do you jump to the stupid conclusion that there's some kind of
conspiracy here?

What a ****ing numbskull.

I wonder if the Post reported these payments on their tax returns?

They never happened. They canceled the event.

That was the first one?
And why did they cancel it?
A reasonable explanation would be that top management didn't kow'about
it right away, and when they found out, they cancelled it.
Was that it?
Or was the impetus to cancel some kind of external pressure?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 2, 9:43*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 2, 9:07*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:48*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jul 2, 3:54*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:38*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

I still want to know who are the members of congress and the
administration whoring their position to such an event.

I invite key people to my house for dinner. I offer you access to him
at that dinner I set up for $50,000. You show up, meet, have your talk
and leave. The key people have no idea about your payment to me. This
was a business idea for a paper, not a political fundraiser, dum-dum.

Why do you jump to the stupid conclusion that there's some kind of
conspiracy here?

What a ****ing numbskull.

I wonder if the Post reported these payments on their tax returns?

They never happened. They canceled the event.

That was the first one?
And *why did they cancel it?

B ecause their marketing department made a flyer.

A reasonable explanation would be that top management didn't kow'about
it right away, and when they found out, they cancelled it.
Was that it?

Management didn't know about or didn't vet a flyer their marketing
department produced.

Clyde, do you ever read the news? It's all there.

Or was the impetus to cancel some kind of external pressure?

The flyer went out and created an uproar.

It's a non-issue (to normal people). It's a *HUGE* issue to right
wingnuts and has made them really REALLY mad (as does absolutely
everything or so it seems). It's 'proof' that the Obama adminstraion
is for sale!!!!!!!!!!! It's 'proof' that the horrible liberal MSM is
whoring themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 3, 10:07*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 2, 6:06*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:50*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jul 2, 5:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

"Weymouth said the paper had planned a series of dinners with
participation from the newsroom “but with parameters such that we did
not in any way compromise our integrity.

Charging for access "IS": compromising your integrity

Not in the context of sponsoring an event. If that's the case then
sponsoring dinners and things at national political conventions should
be illegal.

Those are typical billed as fundraisers, not pay for access.
(I know, subtle difference but that's politics).

My flyer from the White House says it costs $250,000 to meet with the
VP. What does yours say? LoL.

WP: "Sponsor". Flyer: "Pay for access".

So far your only defense in this case is the featured guests are

I do not have to defend a thing, dum-dum. I'm not involved with it.

unwitting pawns not knowing the true reason for their attendance
which is absurd.

"Sponsor".

Um, 2pid? Do you suppose just for an instant that somebody printed a
flyer that wasn't vetted? I mean, do you *really* believe the WP would
print a flyer saying "politicians for sale"?

Duh.

What happens when the unwitting guests fail to appear?

Um, 2pid? The party was cancelled.

It's just a dinner party, I'm sure simple regrets will do. *LoL.

LoL. What an imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 3, 10:16*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:43*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On Jul 2, 9:07*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:48*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jul 2, 3:54*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:38*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

I still want to know who are the members of congress and the
administration whoring their position to such an event.

I invite key people to my house for dinner. I offer you access to him
at that dinner I set up for $50,000. You show up, meet, have your talk
and leave. The key people have no idea about your payment to me. This
was a business idea for a paper, not a political fundraiser, dum-dum.

Why do you jump to the stupid conclusion that there's some kind of
conspiracy here?

What a ****ing numbskull.

I wonder if the Post reported these payments on their tax returns?

They never happened. They canceled the event.

That was the first one?
And *why did they cancel it?

*Because Politico outed the story.

And how did Politico find out about it? Was there a flyer involved?

Numbskull. LoL.

I still think the media is really missing the point extolling charging
for access to WaPo news reporters when pay for access to congressman
and administration officials is the real crime. *Who were they and why
did they agree to participate?
What was in it for them? * Shhhtard of course sees nothing but beauty
and light in his party. *It is his religion and he is bound to
worship.

No, dum-dum. What I see is a highly doubtful conspiracy that you've
latched on to...again.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 3, 11:02*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 3, 8:55*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:16*am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jul 2, 7:43*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jul 2, 9:07*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:48*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jul 2, 3:54*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:38*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

I still want to know who are the members of congress and the
administration whoring their position to such an event.

I invite key people to my house for dinner. I offer you access to him
at that dinner I set up for $50,000. You show up, meet, have your talk
and leave. The key people have no idea about your payment to me. This
was a business idea for a paper, not a political fundraiser, dum-dum.

Why do you jump to the stupid conclusion that there's some kind of
conspiracy here?

What a ****ing numbskull.

I wonder if the Post reported these payments on their tax returns?

They never happened. They canceled the event.

That was the first one?
And *why did they cancel it?

*Because Politico outed the story.

And how did Politico find out about it? Was there a flyer involved?

Yup. *Someone was as dumb as an Obama administration
fool flying AF1 over NY.

Air Force One is usually piloted by a full colonel.

Are you saying DoD is partisan? OMG! Another conspiracy! LoL.

Numbskull. LoL.

I still think the media is really missing the point extolling charging
for access to WaPo news reporters when pay for access to congressman
and administration officials is the real crime. *Who were they and why
did they agree to participate?
What was in it for them? * Shhhtard of course sees nothing but beauty
and light in his party. *It is his religion and he is bound to
worship.

No, dum-dum. What I see is a highly doubtful conspiracy that you've
latched on to...again.

*Once again, you think they sent a flyer out advertising a big pay for
event with no commitments from featured guests? *LoL. *Sure thing.

LoL. As I said, you've latched on to a conspiracy theory...again.
Thank you for proving my point for me. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 3, 11:00*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 3, 8:54*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

So far your only defense in this case is the featured guests are

I do not have to defend a thing, dum-dum. I'm not involved with it.

*LoL. *You don't have to breath or bow during your party worship
either.


Duh.

unwitting pawns not knowing the true reason for their attendance
which is absurd.

"Sponsor".

Um, 2pid? Do you suppose just for an instant that somebody printed a
flyer that wasn't vetted?

*I do.

I rest my case. You've just admitted to the possibility of an
overzealous marketing department.

*I mean, do you *really* believe the WP would
print a flyer saying "politicians for sale"?

Apparently yes. *The issue the WaPo seems most concerned about
is that newsroom reporters were for sale.
Politicians and beaurocrats are a readily available commodity.

Duh.

What they're concerned about is even the appearance they were, dum-
dum.

Do you think they printed and distributed a flyer with no
featured guests agreement to attend?

2pid, are you *really* this thick? LoL.

A dinner gets set up. Guests are invited and accept. The marketing
department prints a flyer for potential sponsors that is not what the
people having the dinner expected.

If there's more, it will turn up. I very seriously doubt that if
politicians were for sale they'd print a flyer announcing it.

What a moron. LoL.