Access fire sale at WaPo, while Connie uses hers expertly in a death spiral
Thu, Jul 2, 2009
It really is appropriate that on the day the Washington Post decides to literally sell the access they have using these words…
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 paper’s own reporters and editors.
…that on this same day, Connie Schultz holds a “chat” to lobby those same people, one of whom happens to be her US Senator husband, to change federal law to save their business model, and their jobs, at the expense of the First Amendment.
We really are watching the death throes of newspapers. It’s become a fire sale of everything they have that is valuable, which is to say their rolodexes. They’re work product is on sale, their integrity is on sale, everything they’ve ever done professionally is on the block to the highest bidder.
And they think no one notices. In her “chat”, Connie made a point of not answering a single question from the evil Tim Russo. The question Mike McIntyre decided to ask from me, which turned Connie red in the face, was “has Connie abandoned her promise to not write about federal legislation which her husband as US Senator would have to vote on.” Connie refused to answer this, and all questions from me, saying “Can’t make me! Ain’t gonna answer it!” So mature. Can you imagine her reaction if a public official refused to answer a legitimate question based on who asked it?
These people are in total panic. It must be stressful to have spent your entire career putting together a product that is now so valueless that you have to sell your soul to keep the paycheck coming. Since there never was any soul to sell, no wonder they’re panicking.
Tags: connie schultz, pd
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Tim: Just one point of clarification. I “chose” to ask the very first question you posed. My guest declined to answer and said she would not answer another from you, so my asking any further questions would have proven futile.
Also, when there are lots of questions as there were, Gloria Millner, who helps by producing the show, chooses which ones to ask, trying to keep an eye on redundancy and the like.
I tried to cover a range of issues presented in the chat room and in the comments section on her story, including asking he whether bloggers could be investigative reporters, asking her to explain how she could push for legislation given her marital status and bringing up the issues of media monopolization, the decision to give content away free and many other issues. I thought it was a pretty thorough discussion.
Thanks for your participation.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Your “guest”? Don’t you mean your co-worker?
No one has adequately explained the use of one of your columnist’s access to her husband in lobbying for federal legislation directly in your employer’s economic interest. To date, all you have produced is arrogance and dismissiveness, to the point that now today, your “guest” is allowed to sit there and whine like a teenager when asked about it by someone she despises.
When you people are prepared to act like adults, we bloggers are ready to listen.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Yes, my guest.
Yes, my co-worker.
No secrets there.
The whole concept of the show is to chat with one of our reporters or columnists or editors and to facilitate discussion with those who join in via the chat room. Again, I am sorry that she would not answer questions from you, but she has the right to make that decision.
As to her husband, I did ask her that question and she did say that he would be recusing himself from discussion and or voting on such an issue, if it were ever to come up. Asked and answered.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
The question of her husband has not been “asked and answered”. One of the many straw men Connie uses to complain that she’s being “hated” is the claim that somehow someone is suggesting this was all Sherrod’s idea. No one has done that.
The question is how is she using her access, representing her employer, in this crusade of hers, which the PD has now pimped twice since in web chats. That is the essential reason for federal lobbying legislation – not that anyone will recuse, or not vote on a matter, but that the access of certain corporate entities can be used in many ways other than having the target of that access vote a certain way.
If you can’t understand that, you really have no idea what you’ve gotten yourselves into.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Tim: I love your blog and I agree with you on most things, but I would give Mike and Connie the benefit of the doubt on the issue that was raised via your question during the chat, and what you continue to harp on now. If you want to debate the logic behind the proposal, that’s fine. At the same time, if you want to question the professionalism of an accomplished journalist flat out dismissing a question based on who posed it, and then childishly stating “not going to answer it … can’t make me,” that too is OK. But what you continue to harp on is wrong.
Assuming this somehow is proposed in the Senate and gets through committee and reaches the floor (all very unlikely), it is clear that Senator Brown will not vote on the matter. Therefore, no promise has been broken.
Furthermore, you stated: “she [is] using her access, representing her employer, in this crusade of hers, which the PD has now pimped twice since in web chats. That is the essential reason for federal lobbying legislation … that the access of certain corporate entities can be used in many ways other than having the target of that access vote a certain way.” Saying this, in my humble opinion, completely disregards the fact that this is a unique situation and that the newspaper industry as a whole is very much a newsworthy topic. I’ll agree with you that it is a dying industry, and I will agree with you on the reasons why, but the fact remains that journalists find themselves in a unique situation where they are in fact the news. When an industry is in distress — whether it be the auto industry, the steel mills, or the newspaper industry — it is worthy of and will receive media attention. Columnists, from Cal Thomas to Connie Schultz, will comment on such situations, and offer up possible solutions. That is what has occurred here, with the unique twist that it is her own industry that is failing.
If you want to engage in a debate on the merits of her idea, you should — you will win. I just think you’re getting too off point concerning what she said in the 2006 campaign season and the platform that she is expressing her views from. If there are columnists out there who are as equally opposed to rewriting copyright law as you are, then their voices will be heard, from the same soapbox is Connie Schultz.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Buckeye….thanks for the kind words, glad you commented.
You are right, this proposal is a non-starter in a thousand ways. But the use of Connie Schultz by the PD to push it, repeatedly, all while knowing she is married to a US Senator, is a real problem. Yes, newspapers are news, and yes they can advocate all they want, and yes, they are in trouble and should be allowed to fight for survival.
To do so by making your mouthpiece someone whose spouse is a US Senator, who herself promised to never write on anything her husband might vote on in the US Senate, is stunningly arrogant. As the spouse of a US Senator, she has influence in Congress well beyond any other columnist, or for that matter, her own publisher. The PD knows this, knows it has been an issue, and simply ignored it.
That’s my problem with this. It’s particularly galling coming from a crowd that endlessly dismisses bloggers for their own ethics. I don’t expect anything on this front to change, ever. These people are arguing the same arrogance they argued 10 years ago when blogs began to exist. Except now, they are using the unique access of their own property to lobby Congress.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
These people are so arrogant, so enthralled with their own self importance. It’s sickening.
And not to be petty, but Connie is looking pretty chunky.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
“Bloggers aren’t skilled and experienced like reporters.” Give me a break.
Attorneys used to charge $5,000-$8,000 to set up a corporation. Now it can be done by a kid in India or a $50 piece of software or online for 150 bucks.
Journalism is the same. The costs of production have gone down towards zero. As a result, almost anyone can do it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Will one of these folks name a blogger who has stolen content without attribution? Just name one.
I can’t. Every blogger I’ve ever read, whether left, right, middle, nuts, assholes etc. religiously, religiously, credit their original source. Hell, it helps drive our traffic and web placement when we do so but its more than that. Hell, it’s probably the only rule that every blogger agrees with.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Scott, the entire video was one straw man after another.
“Bloggers take our content without attritbution” Straw man. Never happens.
“Bloggers take the entire content” Straw man. Never happens.
“Daily Beast is a parasite that does all of the above” Straw man. Name one time Daily Beast has done anything of the kind, in particular, with PD content.
“MEANIES!” Straw man. Has been for almost a decade.
“Sherrod didn’t whisper this in my ear” Straw man. No one ever suggested that.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Tim — what is the deal with the animosity between yourself and Connie? I’ve caught up on the Russo/Ryan controversy through the tab on the top of your page, but I have been following your blog for a while (granted, post-2006 election) and I had no idea such a problem existed. Is it possible to summarize in a short space?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:10 pm
ancient history. this particular issue is rather instructive of the general arrogance from the woman, however. it’s who she is.