Suddenly, WaPimp doesn’t kiss and tell

posted at 10:55 am on July 3, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The uproar over the Washington Post’s attempt to act as pimp and madam between lobbyists, reporters, and high-ranking government officials has exposed more than just one hypocrisy.  An astute reader points out that besides the damage done to the Post’s political integrity by Katherine Weymouth’s access sale, their response points out a massive journalistic hypocrisy, too.  The LA Times’ Peter Nicholas wanted to get a list of government officials invited by Weymouth to be bait for the lobbyist money guests to her “salon,” but got the stonewall treatment when asked:

The Post said it would not release a list of public officials who’d been invited to the dinners.

I guess the Post doesn’t kiss and tell, huh?  They didn’t always take that position, though.  When Dick Cheney met with energy-industry leaders in 2001 (before he could take advantage of the Post’s Mack Daddy program), the Post demanded transparency in government officials meeting with lobbyists.  In fact, the Post got inside sources to divulge the list of participants in the meetings of the Energy Task Force.  The Post was so impressed with itself that it created the handy table in order to make the information as easy to read as possible, when it published the names of all the participants in 2006.

Now, how does that situation differ from the Post’s own “salons” intended to create tete-a-tetes in private with high-ranking government officials?  Shouldn’t the Post, as a journalistic organization, inform the public about the actions of public officials who want to secretly meet with lobbyists?  After all, that was the reasoning behind the demand that Cheney release the participants in the ETF — that secrecy would negatively impact public policy.  If these public officials declined the invitations, we’d like to see that kind of integrity honored.  If they didn’t decline the invitations, then we should know about that, too.

This is what happens when a journalistic organization decides to moonlight as a power pimp for profit.  The moonlight identity becomes the sole identity.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Does Weymouth have prior experience with this sort of thing?

d1carter on July 3, 2009 at 10:58 AM

ShoutOut to HawkDriver and Company. Please stay safe and keep your heads down.

We love you guys, are thinking about you this 4th of July and are very proud of what you are doing for our Country.

Back on topic.

Knucklehead on July 3, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Knucklehead on July 3, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Ditto.

myrenovations on July 3, 2009 at 11:01 AM

So they are admitting that invitations had actually gone out. Anyone dumb enough to allow a flyer to be printed is dumb enough to leave a paper trail with names of invitees. The reporter just has to talk to the person who addressed the invitations. The truth will out.

txmomof6 on July 3, 2009 at 11:04 AM

I dunno,

with paper delivery persons like the headline pic circulation is going to soar.

Limerick on July 3, 2009 at 11:08 AM

NO PIMPING INVOLVED IN THIS INVITATION:

BIG Anti tax-and-spend Tea Party in Gascoigne Park on St. Simons Island, Georgia, 11AM to 3PM on Saturday, July 4th.

Bands, Hot Dogs, Cokes,Speeches, Flags, Motorcycle Vets appearance, Colonial-era soldiers executing musket drills, free popcorn and cotton candy. Face painting for the kids! COME ONE, COME ALL! Bring your signs! Coverage of the event will be spread through newspapers, television and the internet!

bradley11 on July 3, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Does Weymouth have prior experience with this sort of thing?

d1carter on July 3, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Could be. She does have the hard life, burned out eyes of a whore.

MikeA on July 3, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Well at the prices WaPo charges they better not kiss and tell.

Mr. Joe on July 3, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Transparency is only for damaging republicans.

Rebar on July 3, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Jonah’s spot on with this advice.

Mr. Joe on July 3, 2009 at 11:14 AM

So who is the hotness in the photo?

Yeah yeah, just tell me.

Bishop on July 3, 2009 at 11:14 AM

So who is the hotness in the photo?

Yeah yeah, just tell me.

Bishop on July 3, 2009 at 11:14 AM

SIT! STAY!Good Bishop!

katy the mean old lady on July 3, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Another example of outrageous hypocrisy by Democrat shills masquerading as journalists with “integrity.” It’s hardly worth reporting anymore.

Cicero43 on July 3, 2009 at 11:30 AM

The LA Times’ Peter Nicholas wanted to get a list of government officials invited by Weymouth

Good track to follow. I also think taking officials’ say-so on whether they’d decided to attend or not should not accepted at face value and there should be a demand for the release of all communications on the matter. What had been promised to these officials? Were they “guaranteed” (from the flier) something, too?

KittyLowrey on July 3, 2009 at 11:30 AM

I’d start with Rahm….

patrick neid on July 3, 2009 at 11:31 AM

So who is the hotness in the photo?

Yeah yeah, just tell me.

Bishop on July 3, 2009 at 11:14 AM

That’s Katharine Weymouth.

Ed Morrissey on July 3, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Living just outside DC, I am constantly irritated by the overheard conversations every day usually beginning with “did you see the Post article about Obama’s ….. (fill in the blank)”, “did you hear about Bushs secret…”, “I can’t believe the Post won’t demand Cheney to…”.
Makes one want to give someone an adult case of shaken-baby syndrome.
I generally wait to hear the exchange, then politiely correct them. Usually to dropped jaws that they were standing close to a Republican. Ewwww!

redneckjoe on July 3, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Weymouth’s reasoning is hilarious: The business part of WaPo came up with this, not the journalist part of WaPo.

No part of WaPo should be participating in politics.

I really hope they’re readership is leaving in droves over this.

hisfrogness on July 3, 2009 at 11:37 AM

You don’t get it — When the state run media does the guest listing and conducts the affair for money, it’s all just good capitalism. Have to stay in business somehow, right?

The cozy hammock of state run media and the politburo has been exposed and it’s not pretty.

Lawmakers who had been invited said they were not told the events would make money for the newspaper. But the Post had separately sent fliers seeking sponsors who would pay $25,000 for a single “salon” or $250,000 for 11 events.

Probably true they just thought of it as just another bribe fest to go to.

At what point do this overwhelm and people yell stop …

tarpon on July 3, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Katharine Weymouth: rockin’ bod! Will she be attending the pimping sessions?

Sweet_Thang on July 3, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Does Weymouth have prior experience with this sort of thing?

d1carter on July 3, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Could be. She does have the hard life, burned out eyes of a whore.

MikeA on July 3, 2009 at 11:13 AM

If she has the eyes of a whore, it’s certainly not because she’s had a hard life. She had led a life of wealth and privilege. Katharine is the daughter of Lally Weymouth, who was the daughter of Katharine and Phil Graham. It was Katharine Graham’s very wealthy father who purchased the Post, and her husband Phil who was mainly credited with turning it into a money-maker. Phil (who came from a working class background) was supposedly brilliant, but he was also a first-rate a$$hole who treated Katharine Graham like crap (a fact she was either unable or unwilling to acknowledge). When Phil committed suicide, Katharine left behind her life as a society housewife/mother and took over the Post, and she was the one running it during the Watergate drama.

AZCoyote on July 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM

That’s Katharine Weymouth.

Ed Morrissey on July 3, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Wow! I’ll go to her salon.

conservnut on July 3, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Now, how does that situation differ from the Post’s own “salons” intended to create tete-a-tetes in private with high-ranking government officials?

…Definition of a false naïveté

ericdijon on July 3, 2009 at 11:53 AM

That’s Katharine Weymouth.

Ed Morrissey on July 3, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Don’t look too closely.

gh on July 3, 2009 at 11:54 AM

I really hope they’re readership is leaving in droves over this.

hisfrogness on July 3, 2009 at 11:37 AM
At what point do this overwhelm and people yell stop …

tarpon on July 3, 2009 at 11:42 AM

The WaPo’s “voluntary readership” is pretty much down to the lefty echo chamber, like most of the liberal rags masquerading as “newspapers” these days. For the liberal fascist class however, the WaPo is the trough they feed off of, so they think this is GREAT – a really effective tool to further their cause, sorta like pimping out the Lincoln Bedroom was for Klinton. So, don’t think this is the end of it or that the rats will start jumping ship – The WaPo just has to be more clever about their pimpin’ now.

Fishoutofwater on July 3, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Double standards?

noooooooooo.

Self serving a$$holes?

YES!

BillaryMcBush on July 3, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Don’t look too closely.

gh on July 3, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Dang! you ruined it for me. Definitely a two bagger.

conservnut on July 3, 2009 at 12:02 PM

I’m not sure why you think this link belongs on this thread… Maybe you just like the part that I struck out…
-

Jonah’s spot on with this advice.
Mr. Joe on July 3, 2009 at 11:14 AM

-
So here’s my advice. Stay home and do your job and your homework. You’ll still be a national figure come the primaries. But if you can’t surprise your detractors with your grasp of policy when you re-emerge on the national stage, you won’t win the nomination. More important, you won’t deserve to.

-
To be honest, it does not matter a bit what she does with the MSM, most of the country has made up their minds on her. Those that are on the fence will be swayed only if she goes around the MSM (they are mostly all pimps for Obama and the socialist agenda now anyway so she will always be edited to look the worst). Indeed she does need Paladins to fight most of the goofier battles so that she can remain above it as much as possible (http://www.johnziegler.com/ comes to mind), but “stay home”…. PLEASE.
-
3 years from now we may not recognize this country anymore; due in large part to the stinking lies and half truths being reported as news. Omissions/below the fold reporting of important stories for some Baseball teams Father’s Day celebration (Phila Inquire did that during the first days of the Iran election protests and the Nork missile crisis).
-
This WaPo story is an ice breaker for things to come, and your reaction is to post a link advising Palin to stay home… How about this, you stay home (since that seems to make sense to you). I’ll be in Phila on the 4th. Noon at Independence Hall… http://www.independencehalltpa.com/ . Or, find a tea party for yourself and add something positive to the resistance. http://www.teapartyday.com/Locations.aspx
-

RalphyBoy on July 3, 2009 at 12:03 PM

I know Ed wanted to say this but was afraid of the reaction. It’s not WaPimp, it’s WaHo

E9RET on July 3, 2009 at 12:03 PM

She is hot. I bet Eliot Spitzer would have paid up for a private meeting.

guntotinglibertarian on July 3, 2009 at 12:11 PM

What kind of an idiot would show up at a known brothel like this where they can be taped trying to buy influence with a Federal official.

Jeff from WI on July 3, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Question:Do you have the permission of the lady shown to be used in a thread about this type of topic, with this kind of wording?

Jeff from WI on July 3, 2009 at 12:27 PM

The WaPo tried to spread legs for money. Now that it got busted it will try to claim rape.

Is that liberal thinking, or what?!?

Somebody will try to sell it’s Little-Black-Book now. Always happens.

Yoop on July 3, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Another reason to NOT buy a subscription nor advertise there :

access sale, their response points out a massive journalistic hypocrisy, too.

ama on July 3, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Who’s the babe in the photo?

peacenprosperity on July 3, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Maybe an investigative journalist from another publication will find out the information and publish it?

Daggett on July 3, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Decent rack anyway. Kind of ironic when a streetwalker has the word “mouth” in her name.

holdfast on July 3, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Jeff at12:25—-Politicians?

DDT on July 3, 2009 at 12:57 PM

If you show up at the Salon, you get to know. Otherwise, go pound sand…

unclesmrgol on July 3, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Is she tina weymouth’s sister?

peacenprosperity on July 3, 2009 at 1:21 PM

She is hot.
guntotinglibertarian on July 3, 2009 at 12:11 PM

She’s got a really big chin. Looks kind of like a more feminine version of John Kerry.

Interweb Troll on July 3, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Jeff at12:25—-Politicians?

DDT on July 3, 2009 at 12:57 PM
LOL..or lobbyist

Jeff from WI on July 3, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Weymouth’s reasoning is hilarious: The business part of

WaPo came up with this, not the journalist part of WaPo.

No part of WaPo should be participating in politics.

I really hope they’re readership is leaving in droves over this.

hisfrogness on July 3, 2009 at 11:37 AM

funny that is how prostitution works.
The business part is the money
The the sex is the product.

seven on July 3, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Bust-ed!!!

n0doz on July 3, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Puhleeze, people, stop with the snide sexual comments about Weymouth just because she’s posed for a glamour photo. I hate that when the left does it to Fox News reporters or Sarah Palin.

I wanted to make that disclaimer before making the following comment:

It appears The Washed-up Post has proven The White Stripes correct about one thing in their 2007 pro-illegal immigration track “Icky Thump”: “You can’t be a pimp and a prostitute too.”

L.N. Smithee on July 3, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Do you think the invited Congresscritters suspected a sting operation?

disa on July 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM

I saw the name Weymouth and it rang a bell, and it turns out she’s the niece of former Talking Heads bassist Tina Weymouth. Hey, her niece is “Burning Down the House,” LOL

Jim Treacher on July 3, 2009 at 2:16 PM

I mean, it really is kind of unbelievable.

disa on July 3, 2009 at 2:21 PM

I think we have a right to know who is attending these parties.

Isn’t this just another form of payola?

Where’s that asshat Conyers when you need him? Oh yeah, driving his old lady to jail.

Lonetown on July 3, 2009 at 3:02 PM

The WaPo has credibility?

GarandFan on July 3, 2009 at 9:08 PM

The “journalism” side of their organization should objectively report the newsworthy actions of their “financial” side.

PatMac on July 4, 2009 at 10:23 AM