Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WaPo is farming out articles to glorified corporate PR firms masquerading as 'news services'?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 05:04 PM
Original message
WaPo is farming out articles to glorified corporate PR firms masquerading as 'news services'?
Edited on Wed Jan-06-10 05:24 PM by BurtWorm
What the fuck is wrong with them!? Are they this desperate to survive?

:wtf:


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/business/media/06post.html

Sourcing of Article Awkward for Paper

By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: January 5, 2010

Facing criticism for publishing the work of a start-up news organization, The Washington Post said Tuesday that it should have disclosed more about the group’s financier and his connections, and the paper’s ombudsman said he was looking into the relationship.

The start-up, The Fiscal Times, covers economic issues, with a particular focus on the federal budget, the growing deficit and efforts to rein in health care and Social Security spending. Its financing was provided by Peter G. Peterson, the billionaire investment banker who advocates deficit reduction and restrictions on entitlement programs.

On Dec. 31, The Post published the first news article produced by The Fiscal Times, a report on the support in Washington for a proposed deficit-reduction commission. The primary expert quoted in the article is from the Concord Coalition, whose mission is also balanced budgets and limits on safety-net spending.

But the article did not mention Mr. Peterson, his backing of The Fiscal Times, that he was a co-founder of the Concord Coalition or that his foundation was a major underwriter of the coalition.

A group of mostly liberal policy analysts say the problem is more basic than a lack of transparency — that The Fiscal Times has a built-in bias, so The Post should not publish its work. The Fiscal Times, which has hired a team of journalists with experience at several prominent news organizations, insists that it has no policy agenda and is independent of any influence by Mr. Peterson.

The Post published a correction on Tuesday, saying that the article should have explained the connections to Mr. Peterson, but the correction did not address the propriety of the paper’s relationship with The Fiscal Times. Andrew Alexander, The Post’s ombudsman, said Tuesday that he was looking into that question.


...

Critics of The Fiscal Times said that first article was not evenhanded and failed to acknowledge criticism of the commission proposal. Dean Baker, an economist who contributes to several news organizations, wrote on Politico.com that the episode “marks the unfortunate demise of The Washington Post as a serious newspaper.”

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Blue Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. How Rovian
Just like the old days of fake journalists advancing Dear Leader's propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I think the worst is yet to come.
In the old days, they wouldn't have sunk to taking money to put propaganda in their pages disguised as news. They'd do it for free. Now they have more incentive than just toadying power worship. It's going to get worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. The Fiscal Times
:rofl:

what next?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. Here's a letter a group of Social Security advocates wrote to Donald Graham of WaPo
Edited on Wed Jan-06-10 05:20 PM by BurtWorm
Hear, hear!


http://www.ncpssm.org/entitledtoknow/?p=871


Donald E. Graham, Chairman of the Board
The Washington Post Company
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr Graham:

On January 1, we contacted the Ombudsman to express our dismay at a slanted piece of journalism that ran in your newspaper and our deep concern about the Post’s decision to partner in the future with the Fiscal Times, which produced the article. The Fiscal Times was created and is funded by Peter G. Peterson, who has engaged in a decades-long effort to have changes to Social Security considered under a fast-track commission which shields members of Congress from political accountability.

Consistent with Mr. Peterson’s longstanding objective, the article the Post published is rife with factual errors, important omissions and significant distortions, which lead the reader to see a fast-tracked commission as sound policy and without opposition – indeed, virtually inevitable. Representative of the errors, omissions, and distortions are the following:


■The Administration has not taken a public position on a so-called fast-track commission, and we have talked to high-level advisers in the White House who have told us privately that they oppose the fast-tracking, yet the first sentence of the second full paragraph states, “President Obama has voiced support for such a plan.”

■ Speaker Pelosi and her staff have been clear about her opposition to a commission whose recommendations are fast tracked, yet the article implies that she has changed her position. A close reading suggests that the article seeks the reader to draw that inference, though her position, in reality, remains unchanged.

■The article fails to report that the powerful Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, is strongly opposed to the proposal. The article obviously fails to note that Senator Baucus delivered an impassioned speech in opposition, in which he described the proposal as a plan under which Congress would “outsource its core fiscal responsibilities,” and warned that “this commission and its new fast track process are truly dangerous… we would risk setting in motion some truly terrible policy…it is clear from their press release that Senators Conrad and Gregg have painted a big red target on Social Security and Medicare. That’s what this commission is all about.”

■The article omits the fact that the AARP is on the public record in opposition of the fast-track commission, but rather implies otherwise by including at the conclusion of the lengthy story some tepid, relatively-narrow concerns of a spokesman for the AARP .

■The article omits the fact that the AARP sent a letter to Congressional leaders stating the AARP’s unequivocal opposition. It also omits the fact that the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations sent a letter representing 27 national aging organizations. The article further omits that a letter signed by over 40 national organizations, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Common Cause, NAACP, NOW, and SEIU, was sent in opposition. Also, omitted was the fact of a letter from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, an organization representing millions of members. Obviously the article provided no quotes from the letters, all of which are posted online.

■No academics or policy analysts are quoted in the story with the exception of the executive director of the Concord Coalition. The story fails to disclose that the founding President of the Concord Coalition is Mr. Peterson, a longtime advocate of the commission that was the focus of the story (and to repeat, the founder and financial backer of the Fiscal Times, which produced the story).

Every error, commission and omission in the article is in support of the objectives of Mr. Peterson. By printing the article, the Washington Post has let itself be used by that powerful individual who is now able to influence policy not just through opinion pieces but through what purports to be objective news.

Of greater concern to us than the one story is the Post’s announced partnership with Mr. Peterson’s enterprise and the plans to publish other articles, as objective news stories, from that biased source. The Post’s highly respected imprimatur is likely to cause local papers to print these biased pieces, as well.

We respectfully request that you meet with a delegation of the undersigned so that we can further discuss our concerns in person. To facilitate the arrangement of the meeting, the contact information of the first signatory appears at the end of this letter

Sincerely,

Nancy J. Altman, Co-Director of Project to Protect and improve America’s Economic Security
Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
Merton C. Bernstein, Coles Professor of Law Emeritus, Washington University
Robert H. Binstock, Professor of Aging, Health, and Society, Case Western Reserve University
Suzanne Blouin, retired, Office of Communications, Social Security Administration
Barbara Burt, Executive Director, Frances Perkins Center
Dale Coberly, co-author of the Northwest Plan to restore Social Security to balance
Nancy Dapper, Executive Director, Western & Central WA Chapter, Alzheimer’s Association
Patricia E. Dilley, Professor of Law, University of Florida
Stephen Gorin Professor, Plymouth State University, Plymouth, NH
Lori L. Hansen, former member, Social Security Advisory Board
Roger Hickey, Co-Director, Campaign for America’s Future
Karen Holden, Emeritus Professor, La Follette School of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Eric Kingson Professor, Syracuse University School of Social Work
Robert Kuttner, Founding Co-Editor, American Prospect
Theodore Marmor, Professor Emeritus, Yale University
Gerald A. McIntyre, National Senior Citizens Law Center
Lawrence Mishel, President, Economic Policy Institute
Maya Rockeymoore, President, Global Policy Solutions
Max J. Skidmore, University of Missouri Curators’ Professor of Political Science, Thomas Jefferson Fellow, University of Missouri-Kansas City
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yep. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC