Posts

Ceci Connolly Cashes In

/in /by

Who knew the world of journalism had the same kind of revolving door as government does? But apparently, if you build a reporting beat entirely around portraying the views of top corporate representatives as the only views that count, and if your newspaper pimps you out as the “play” in a Pay2Play scandal, then you, too, can make the jump to consulting.

CECI CONNOLLY leaves the WP for McKINSEY: “Friends, Pardon the group email but I wanted to tell you all my big news. After 13 great years on the National staff of the Washington Post I’ve decided to take on a new adventure, serving as a senior adviser at McKinsey & Co. to the firm’s new Center for US Health System Reform and its global Health Systems Institute. It is a phenomenal opportunity to grow, learn and have an impact on health care worldwide. I have been blown away by the brainpower at McKinsey and felt that its non-ideological, fact-based approach is the ideal environment for an old-fashioned news gal like me. Throughout 25 years in journalism, I have been blessed with fascinating assignments, warm colleagues and generous sources. Six presidential campaigns, epic health care battles, Hurricane Katrina, two blogs and the machinations of Capitol Hill gave me all I could have ever hoped to write about. Whether bumping along the frost heaves of New Hampshire, talking politics with Juan and Brit on Fox and Gwen on PBS, racing to catch Air Force One (and Two) or sneaking a bite of black market lobster in Cuba, it has been an amazing journey. I hope to catch my breath for a few weeks, do some cooking and play a little golf. I’ll send out my McKinsey coordinates soon. Chrs, Ceci.”

Mind you, I’d rather Connolly be brokering health care deals for McKinsey than do it under the guise of “reporting,” which is what she was doing at the WaPo. So we’re probably all better off!

The biggest problem, though, is the lesson it offers for other journalists: the best way to get out of the troubled news industry and into something more lucrative is with corporate shilling masquerading as journalism.

WaPo Tries to Silence Its Twits

/27 Comments/in , /by

Howard Kurtz’ plaintive Tweet was the first hint that the authorities were cracking down:

Under new WP guidelines on tweeting, I will now hold forth only on the weather and dessert recipes.

Then came OmbudAndy’s post on the new guidelines–which laid out some, but not all, of the new rules.

The new guidelines address the “perception problem” noted by Narisetti. A key section reads:

“When using these networks, nothing we do must call into question the impartiality of our news judgment. We never abandon the guidelines that govern the separation of news from opinion, the importance of fact and objectivity, the appropriate use of language and tone, and other hallmarks of our brand of journalism.”

Another section reads: “What you do on social networks should be presumed to be publicly available to anyone, even if you have created a private account. It is possible to use privacy controls online to limit access to sensitive information. But such controls are only a deterrent, not an absolute insulator. Reality is simple: If you don’t want something to be found online, don’t put it there.”

It continues: “Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything – including photographs or video – that could be perceived as reflecting political racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility.”

Read his whole post for some background on the kind of "perception problems" driving the guidelines.

Finally, PaidContent posted all the guidelines (which cover only personal Twitter and Facebook accounts, not professional ones–those guidelines will come later). More interesting than the "perception problem" guidelines OmbudAndy highlighted are the corporatist ones.

When using social networking tools for reporting or for our personal lives, we must remember that Washington Post journalists are always Washington Post journalists. 

[snip]

Personal pages online are no place for the discussion of internal newsroom issues such as sourcing, reporting of stories, decisions to publish or not to publish, personnel matters and untoward personal or professional matters involving our colleagues. The same is true for opinions or information regarding any business activities of The Washington Post Company. Such pages and sites also should not be used to criticize competitors or those who take issue with our journalism or our journalists.

And, perhaps most amazing of all, where a newspaper implies that freedom of speech is a "privilege," not a right.

All Washington Post journalists relinquish some of the personal privileges of private citizens. 

Read more →

Ceci Connolly Was the “Play” in the WaPo’s Pay2Play Dinner

/in /by

Close to the end of OmbudAndy’s long assessment of his paper’s Pay2Play scandal, he includes this tidbit:

Brauchli conferred with Pelton about the salon dinners. At one point they showed up at the newsroom desk of reporter Ceci Connolly, who covers health care, which was to be the discussion topic of the July 21 dinner. Subsequently, she said, "Charles asked me for some contact phone numbers and e-mails, which I provided."

[snip]

On June 17, another Word document was provided by Pelton to The Post’s advertising staff soliciting a $25,000 sponsorship — "Maximum of two sponsors" — for the July dinner. Under "Hosts and Discussion Leaders," it listed Weymouth, Brauchli and "Other Washington Post health care editorial and reporting staff." It said participants could "Interact with core players in an off-the-record format."

A week later, the flier was distributed to the ad sales staff.

At the same time, e-mails were being sent over Weymouth’s name to lawmakers and others inviting them to the July 21 dinner. They said she, Brauchli and "health care reporter Ceci Connolly" were hosting the evening. An accompanying invitation said it would be off the record and noted that it would be underwritten by a single sponsor, Kaiser Permanente. [my emphasis]

Somehow I just knew Ceci Connolly would be involved in this Pay2Play.

That’s because she has spent the last month "reporting" stories that scold progressives for insisting on real reform. There was the article, for example, where she said,

Activists say they are simply pressing for quick delivery of "true health reform," but the intraparty rift runs the risk of alienating centrist Democrats who will be needed to pass a bill. 

And falsely claimed Adam Green could offer no reason for a public option. Problem is–that’s not what she asked him.

Connolly then asked me why progressives were picking a political fight on the public option, as opposed to another issue. I guess the fact that it’s the #1 domestic issue of the day — one that affects millions of American families — wasn’t explanation enough.

I figured she was looking for a quote summarizing the political stakes, so I though for a moment and said, "The public option has become a proxy for the question of whether Democrats will stand on principle and represent their constituents."

I was quite proud of that answer. Read more →

Weymouth STILL Doesn’t Renounce Pay2Play

/in /by

Katharine Weymouth has a letter to readers apologizing for the Pay2Play dinner she had scheduled for her home. But it is a muddled mess. She apologizes repeatedly–which seems to me an admission of wrong-doing.

I want to apologize for a planned new venture that went off track and for any cause we may have given you to doubt our independence and integrity.

[snip]

As publisher it is my job to ensure that we adhere to standards that are consistent with our integrity as a news organization. Last week, I let you, and the organization, down.

[snip]

We all make mistakes and hope to be forgiven for them. I apologize to our readers for the mistakes I made in this case. 

But while she admits the fliers for the Pay2Play dinner suggested the WaPo was selling access, she still stops short of explaining what she really intended.

A flier distributed last week suggested that we were selling access to power brokers in Washington through dinners that were to take place at my home. The flier was not approved by me or newsroom editors, and it did not accurately reflect what we had in mind. But let me be clear: The flier was not the only problem. 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. 

In fact, the only thing she seems to renounce in this letter is the off-the-record status promised by the fliers. She assures readers that if journalists attend such Pay2Play soirees, they’ll be able to publish what goes on.

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.

[snip]

Further, any conferences or similar events The Post sponsors will be on the record. 

And while she does say she won’t allow sponsors to pay for access to the WaPo’s writers–she says no such thing about brokering events between lobbyists and politicians.

From the outset, we laid down firm parameters to ensure that these events would be consistent with The Post’s values. Read more →

Howie Kurtz’s Latest Story: Weymouth Defends Pay2Play Scheme

/in /by

picture-115.pngHowie Kurtz worked all day yesterday trying to come up with a narrative that would make the WaPo’s Pay2Play scheme look less damning. His latest effort is notable for several reasons:

  • He killed the anonymous quotations from Weymouth and Brauchli
  • With those anonymous quotes, he also killed any description of what the Pay2Play dinners were supposed to be
  • He let Weymouth spend 356 words claiming "everyone does it"
  • He gave a list of the planned attendees

Nevertheless, the bottom line of the story is that Katharine Weymouth still appears to defend the concept of Pay2Play in her living room.

Killing the anonymous quotations from Weymouth and Brauchli

Perhaps Howie killed the anonymous quotes because, in an article trying to defend the WaPo’s "journalistic integrity" and "integrity of the newsroom" it just looked bad to grant the WaPo’s Publisher and Executive Editor anonymity to blame another employee and make vague claims about what the real intent here was. Perhaps Howie killed those quotes because I was already harping on him for them. But as I pointed out yesterday, Howie granted anonymity to WaPo executives who were almost certainly WaPo publisher Weymouth and WaPo Executive Editor Brauchli so they could blame this all on Charles Pelton and make claims about what the Pay2Play Dinners were supposed to be.

Two Post executives familiar with the planning, who declined to be identified discussing internal planning, said the fliers appear to be the product of overzealous marketing executives. The fliers were overseen by Charles Pelton, a Post executive hired this year as a conference organizer. He was not immediately available for comment. 

[snip]

Weymouth knew of the plans to host small dinners at her home and to charge lobbying and trade organizations for participation. But, one of the executives said, she believed that there would be multiple sponsors, to minimize any appearance of charging for access, and that the newsroom would be in charge of the scope and content of any dinners in which Post reporters and editors participated. [my emphasis]

Those anonymous quotations are now gone. Howie replaced the first with on the record quotes directly from Pelton, falling on his sword for not vetting the fliers (but not, it should be noted, for the plan itself).

The fliers were approved by a top Post marketing executive, Charles Pelton, who said it was "a big mistake" on his part and that he had done so "without vetting it with the newsroom."

Read more →