Subscribe
new subscription
gift subscription
renew subscription

The Kicker

  1. July 02, 2009 04:48 PM

    Gibbs: “I Seem to Have Forgotten My Amex”

    Guess what came up at today's White House press briefing?

    Here's a clue: "Was anyone from the White House invited to attend these Washington Post salons that were reported this morning," a reporter asked an obviously-prepared-for-the-question Robert Gibbs--after the crowd got a hearty chuckle out of the suggestion that a reporter would actually ask a question about healthcare--"and what is the White House's officially policy on members of the administration doing things like this, regardless of who sponsors them?"

    "I don't know if anybody here was," Gibbs replied. "I think some people in the administration, writ large, may have been invited. I do not believe, based on what I've been able to check, that anybody has accepted the invitations."

    But. Gibbs continued by saying that White House counsel would review any such invitations--and that "it would likely exceed" what the administration would consider appropriate.


    [h/t, Michael Calderone]

  2. July 02, 2009 04:14 PM

    The Tweetest Taboo

    So the powers that tweet--Biz Stone, Ev Williams, et al--have applied to trademark one of their contributions to mass culture. Specifically, the word "Tweet" itself. Stone explains the move in more detail:

    The ecosystem growing around Twitter is something we very much believe in nourishing and supporting. There are lots of really awesome services and applications out there like TweetDeck, TweetMeme, Tweetie, BackTweets, Tweetboard, and others that we absolutely love as do many users. However, as the ecosystem grows there is also the possibility that confusing and potentially damaging projects could emerge.

    We have applied to trademark Tweet because it is clearly attached to Twitter from a brand perspective but we have no intention of "going after" the wonderful applications and services that use the word in their name when associated with Twitter. In fact, we encourage the use of the word Tweet. However, if we come across a confusing or damaging project, the recourse to act responsibly to protect both users and our brand is important.
  3. July 02, 2009 03:11 PM

    Washington Post All Access Fire Sale!

    So what are we calling this thing, FlierGate? WhineAndDineGate? SpiritedYesConfrontationalNoGate? Regardless, behold the affair's inevitable--and quite funny--parody:

  4. July 02, 2009 02:59 PM

    More on WaPo Salon Deal

    Andy Alexander, ombudsman for the Post, has now weighed in on the “salon” scandal. His post provides some news about how the flier came to be distributed:

    The flier came out of the office Charles Pelton, who joined The Post recently to find ways to generate business through conferences and events. The Post, like many struggling newspapers, is desperately seeking new sources of revenue.

    “There’s no intention to influence or peddle,” Pelton said this morning. “There’s no intention to have a Lincoln Bedroom situation,” referring to charges that President Clinton used invitations to stay at the White House as a way of luring political backing.

    Pelton said newsroom leaders, including Brauchli, had been involved in discussions about the salons and other events.

    “This was well developed with the newsroom,” he said. “What was not developed was the marketing message to potential sponsors.”

    Brauchli acknowledged discussions, but said they had centered on “identifying events that we think are worthy of newsroom participation, whether it’s a conference or a smaller event.”

    Had they talked about where to draw the line on participation by reporters and editors?

    “I thought we had,” he said, adding that he takes some responsibility for “not communicating effectively enough what the limitations were for newsroom participation.”

    Alexander also deems the story a “public relations disaster” for the Post. Hard to disagree with that conclusion.

  5. July 02, 2009 12:49 PM

    Brauchli On WaPo Salons

    In the wake of Mike Allen’s story in Politico this morning about The Washington Post advertising “salons” at which deep-pocketed sponsors could obtain access to administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own editorial staff–-and WaPo Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli’s quick repudiation of the events–-CJR spoke to a clearly exasperated Brauchli. Here’s what he had to say:

    The Post hired an employee to plan events and conferences earlier this year, a step Brauchli called “sensible.” (In fact, other media organizations do the same thing.) And “under certain circumstances,” he said, newsroom staff might participate. But not these circumstances. “We will not participate in this salon dinner or any other event structured like this, nor would we have considered it,” Brauchli said. “We do not produce what is in effect advertorial content.”

    What are the conditions under which editorial staff might take part in an event? Brauchli listed a few: No limitation in advance on questions; the ability to use information gleaned from an event to shape coverage; and the right to determine or agree upon topics of discussion. Further, he said, the Post would not use its name or its journalists to gain access to government officials for “non-news purposes.”

    Brauchli said he had no knowledge of the flyer advertising the event until he received a call from Allen about it last night. “It would never have gone out with my knowledge,” he said. He also said he did not know if the Post had ever held sponsored events, of any type, that featured the presence of editorial employees. (A former Post reporter said he was “fairly sure” the paper had never previously engaged in this sort of activity.)

    So how did the flyer go out without being cleared with the newsroom? We’ve put that question to a Post spokesperson and will update if we hear more.


  6. July 02, 2009 12:16 PM

    The Long and Winding Rohde

    On a day of flurries, some happier news: kidnapped New York Times reporter has had his homecoming at the Times newsroom. Per Gawker's report:

    According to Times Twitterers Jennifer 8. Lee and Jodi Kantor, Rohde, his wife Kristin Mulvihill, and his Afghan fixer Tahir Ludin entered the newsroom minutes ago to what Kantor calls a "looooong loud ovation." The assembled Times staffers were in tears.
  7. July 02, 2009 12:06 PM

    “Our Independence from Advertisers or Sponsors Is Inviolable”

    Michael Calderone has the indignant-toned memo WaPo executive editor Marcus Brauchli issued to the paper's staff earlier today in response to HaveDinnerWithALobbyistGate:

    Colleagues,

    A flyer was distributed this week offering an “underwriting opportunity” for a dinner on health-care reform, in which the news department had been asked to participate.

    The language in the flyer and the description of the event preclude our participation.

    We will not participate in events where promises are made that in exchange for money The Post will offer access to newsroom personnel or will refrain from confrontational questioning. Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable.

    There is a long tradition of news organizations hosting conferences and events, and we believe The Post, including the newsroom, can do these things in ways that are consistent with our values.

    Marcus
  8. July 02, 2009 08:56 AM

    “That Turns Out to be Pretty Close to the Truth”

    MSNBC viewers have suffered no shortage of discussion of Todd Purdum's anonymous source-heavy Vanity Fair article exploring "the pheromonal reality" of the "[Sarah] Palin phenomenon."

    Yesterday, Clint highlighted (see post below) a comment from MSNBC's Chuck Todd about how reporters use the anonymous ID "senior advisor" rather loosely because, well, "we've got to make the story look good." One day earlier, while interviewing Purdum about the piece, Todd didn't ask Purdum whether he, too, cavalierly dubs unnamed sources "senior advisors," but Todd did offer Purdum a chance to "defend" himself against those who might "attack" his piece "for not having a lot of direct quotes from people on the record." Purdum's "defense:"

    One of the things I've learned as a magazine writer is in some ways, the most useful information you get is the kind of information that people are not willing to attach their names to. I know this is a subject of great criticism in journalism today. I try to think of myself as not writing for the news cycle today, but writing something that 10 or 15 years from now, when people read it, they'll say, "You know what, that turns out to be pretty close to the truth." And if I can achieve that, I can sleep at night even if the people are anonymous.

    (There's something familiar about this when history proves me right thing...)

  9. July 01, 2009 05:12 PM

    Senior Moment

    The topic for tonight's opening segment on MSNBC's Hardball was Todd Purdum's Vanity Fair article on Sarah Palin, a story powered by many anonymous quotes. Guest Mike Murphy, an old McCain hand, mentioned that he too has been on the receiving end of attacks from many an anonymous "senior advisor."

    That caused Todd to admit the following with a small chuckle, but to my ears, totally sincerely:

    “Well, I’ll tell you as a reporter, it’s amazing who we’ll call a 'senior adviser.' Uh, did I just admit that? Uh, hey, we’ve got to make the story look good.”

    Worth remembering.

  10. July 01, 2009 03:12 PM

    Jackson Coverage: Too Much? Not Enough (About “Exercise Regimen”)?

    Sixty-four percent of people polled for a Pew News Interest Index survey said there has been "too much" press coverage of Michael Jackson's death.

    MarketWatch's Jon Friedman, in his critique today of both Jackson and Madoff coverage, focuses not on quantity of coverage but on what he found lacking in the coverage. Writes Friedman:

    The media's most glaring deficiency was to focus almost exclusively on the glitz and glamour and overlook the nuances. Journalists should've done a much better job of explaining the big picture beyond the splashy headlines...


    They talked endlessly about such subjects as what was contained in Jackson's will and what Madoff did with his ill-gotten gains. That's fine; it's always a useful idea to follow the money. Trouble is, the journalists themselves had no idea about either conundrum.

    All they did was blab on and speculate, without offering hard facts or original ideas...

    Too much speculation and splash. What would Friedman have done? What was he looking for in Jackson coverage that he didn't get?

    I wish I could've learned more about the nuts and bolts of what it means for a performer to embark on a ballyhooed 50-concert engagement. How rigorous are the rehearsals? What kind of exercise regimen does a performer undertake? Exactly what kind of psychological pressure does someone like Michael Jackson feel about returning to the stage after a lengthy absence?

    Really? That's what Friedman found lacking? Yes, because...

    These are significant points. It could be argued that Jackson, who may have died as a result of drug abuse, felt such a tremendous strain that he increased his intake of painkillers to cope with the responsibility.

    ...isn't that, er, speculation?

    More from Friedman:

    The Jackson concert series had the makings of a terrific story. It was thick in drama. Could Jackson make a comeback worthy of Frank Sinatra or Elvis Presley? Would the audiences be ecstatic about his return? How would the music hold up? And could Jackson do well enough in London to excite promoters to allow him to launch a worldwide tour?

    Nothing speculative or "splash"-centric about any of that.

    Meantime-- oh, self-awareness!--I just caught a segment on MSNBC (chyron: "MICHAEL JACKSON CIRCUS") which involved entertainment reporter Courtney Hazlett (MSNBC's ring master for the Circus) filing a report from the gates of Neverland (the Circus's center ring), David Shuster marveling over how "people are setting up tents" outside Neverland (cut to footage of news satellite trucks jockeying for spots among the white news tents), and an US Weekly reporter offering additional insights such as how this story "is worth a lot of money to a lot of people."

    These "people." Creating this "circus." (What do they think, a sucker is born every minute?)

  11. July 01, 2009 01:04 PM

    Thomas: “Pattern of Controlling The Press”

    Helen Thomas, a White House briefing room vet and Hearst News Service columnist, to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs just now (according to tweets from both the Washington Times's Chrisina Bellantoni and The Nation's David Corn... so, you know, "unverified material" for now):

    I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency...It's a pattern of controlling the press. Your formal engagements are pre-packaged.

    The exchange began when CBS News's Chip Reid asked Gibbs how questions were selected for today's health care town hall event and Gibbs, Twitters Corn, "pushes back at charge of WH control of process" and "Helen jumps in."

    The AP describes today's town hall as an "online event... at Northern Virginia Community College in....Annandale, Va., which will include questions from those in the school's auditorium" and questions from Facebook, YouTube and Twitter."


  12. July 01, 2009 10:30 AM

    “Who will suffer?”

    Last week, Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, gave a disquieting address to the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies focusing on the danger to our open records and access laws as regional newspapers and other media organizations pare their legal budgets.

    In the address, Dalglish outlined major advances in open government and press freedom achieved in the last 50 years: the Freedom of Information Act, open courts, case law preventing prior restraint and spurious libel claims, shield laws and whistleblower protections, countless state and local statutes that require open records and meetings.

    And how does Dalglish say America won those fights?

    Media companies, mostly newspapers, paid for all of this. It wasn't cheap. They made money, to be sure. But they spent a lot of that money fighting for the public's right to know what its public and private institutions were up to. They spent the money on your behalf. You may have noticed your local media have hit hard times. It's been much worse than the economy as a whole…


    Who will suffer when these mainstream media companies no longer launch these battles?


    We all will.

    Read it in full.

  13. July 01, 2009 09:30 AM

    “Michael Jackson Will Only Die Once…”

    ... is the number one "stupidest comment" uttered on TV (so far, I'd add) about Jackson's death, according to Jon Stewart on last night's Daily Show. Congrats, NBC News's Michael Okwu, on your "Rippy Award for Outstanding Achievement in Obitutainment."

    The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
    The Rippy Awards for Outstanding Achievement in Obitutainment
    www.thedailyshow.com
    Daily Show
    Full Episodes    		Political HumorJason Jones in Iran

  14. July 01, 2009 12:28 AM

    Ezra Klein Says It All

    To quote a tweet Ezra Klein just posted to his Twitter feed: "You know who I wish I had written fewer good things about? John Edwards." In response to this.

    Um, I agree.