Comments on: Washington Post Selling Access To Reporters & Admin Officials

By: Rick's Cafe

Rick's Cafe — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:41:50 +0000

#14
Coitus Interruptus?

By: deowll

deowll — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:19:17 +0000

Selling influence. Change you can believe in?

Sounds more like the same old thing to me.

These are the people that Obama said voted for him, right?

Just one more reason a lot of Americans watch Fox News.

By: Nimby

Nimby — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:43:52 +0000

I got no prob with it. Reporters CAN be very insightful and help lobbyists see things from different angles.

Once you start to invite pols and “officials”, I’ve got lot’s of problems with it.

Besides, isn’t it illegal for Congress and admin officials to meet with special interests in private and “off the record”?

By: EvilPoliticians

EvilPoliticians — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:47:51 +0000

Everything inside the beltway is a slimy cesspool.

I really love the defenders on this thread. Very entertaining after a long day.

By: SparkyOne

SparkyOne — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:40:49 +0000

so they admit to the practice, bfd. trees are not cheap

By: god

god — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:38:01 +0000

The dinner is canceled BTW:

http://tinyurl.com/njzd5w

By: Rick's Cafe

Rick's Cafe — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:24:47 +0000

And will there be transparency with the financial transactions?

The whole world wants to know who is paying how much, to meet with whom (IRS agents) and what was discussed (reporters).

By: Dennis

Dennis — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:50:52 +0000

The lobbyists are just upset because now instead of a $1000 dinner they can write off, they have to get someone to pay $25k or more to have the same access.

Its a sign of the times when people CHARGE for information, but thats old news now.

The Net was supposed to change everything, but no one really understood what EVERYTHING was supposed to be.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:43:51 +0000

It’s just like politicians making others hire certain consultants for votes/access. The politician can talk directly to the lobbyist for nothing, or they can have to press organize something for a fee (say $20k) and then have the press kick back 1/2 of that to the pol as a finders fee in campaign contributions.

Dubious ethics.

By: rightsucks

rightsucks — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:29:15 +0000

The media should be helping Obama get things done. It’s called patriotism, get used to it.

Why shouldn’t the media be working with the state? Being outside the state means being unAmerican now that Obama won. He’s the President, and we should be doing what he says…that’s democracy! You sore losers need to realize that you lost…you no longer have the right to oppose the President. Is this stuff too hard for you to understand?

By: Ah_Yea

Ah_Yea — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:24:50 +0000

#5,

That’s what “I’ll meet you at the restaurant down the street” is for.

I’ll bet that if the bribing parties are not discriminate, it can be reported. How could they stop it?

By: Yes

Yes — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:24:12 +0000

So the Post is reduced to whoredom. Was it really any different before?

It’s like our whole American power structure is all about whoring itself…

The banksters are the johns.
The lobbyists are the pimps.
The Congress, media and academics are the abject whores.

By: Obamarocks

Obamarocks — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:23:48 +0000

I’m sorry, I don’t see the problem…they are just being honest about what has always gone on. Bush was 1,000,000,000,000 times worse because he limited who could pay him off. These guys are letting anyone get in on the action.

If that old bat Helen Thomas had just paid her fees, she could have had the President’s ear.

Suck it Repubs, you have no power and no one cares about you. You have no voice, don’t matter, and might as well stop trying to have an effect.

We won.

By: Ah_Yea

Ah_Yea — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:21:45 +0000

Sounds something like a TED conference for different interest.

I don’t think this whole deal is a nefarious as it may first seem.

Remember, the Washington Post doesn’t have to allow it’s reporters to be made available to the competition, and:

If the Post spends it’s time and money bringing people together for conferences, it should be paid for this service.

The article makes it seem that the Post is the White House Gatekeeper, which obviously isn’t true.

By: Uncle Dave

Uncle Dave — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:21:40 +0000

So what happens if a politician, who has expenses of his own, wants a part of the cash in order to participate?

Does $25K get a lobbyist a group meeting with a pol and other lobbyists while $250K get you a private meeting to ‘push’ your agenda more personally?

Where are the boundaries to what can happen? If a lobbyist tried to bribe an official at one of these, would the paper report it?