A marketing scheme backfired on The Washington Post on Thursday, forcing the newspaper into uncharacteristic mea culpa mode.
A headline in The Post itself tells all: "The Post's 'Salon' Plan: A Public Relations Disaster."
In an age of excruciating transparency, revelations that the newspaper planned to pair up political insiders, business leaders, Obama administration officials and Post reporters for cozy, off-the-record "salons" at the home of publisher Katharine Weymouth generated immediate, corrosive buzz -- and lots of reaction.
A color publicity flier obtained by Politico revealed that The Post would charge up to $250,000 for these "collegial" encounters, billed as "extensions of The Washington Post brand of journalistic inquiry into the issues."
The pile-on began. Immediate coverage from news organizations and bloggers took its toll. Within hours, The Post announced that the "policy dinners" were canceled, forcing the newspaper's brass into the spotlight to explain the bungle.
"This should never have happened. The fliers got out and weren't vetted. They didn't represent at all what we were attempting to do. We're not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom," Ms. Weymouth said.
"For a storied newspaper that cherishes its reputation for ethical purity, this comes pretty close to a public relations disaster," wrote Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander, identifying newly hired Post events manager Charles Pelton as the man behind the flier.
"There's no intention to influence or peddle. There's no intention to have a Lincoln bedroom situation," Mr. Pelton said.
"Gatherings similar to this 'salon' idea happen all the time. Sometimes a paper gets paid, sometimes not. There are probably better ways to try and generate revenue, though.
"There's distinction between charging for information and charging for access," said Robert Lichter, director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University.
