thenation
Eric Alterman

In Ken Aascii117lettas sterling New Yorker profile of Rascii117pert Mascii117rdochs new BFF, Wall Street Joascii117rnal editor Robert Thompson, he makes a startling observation: the reason Mascii117rdoch was able to pascii117t his man in the job withoascii117t triggering any of the provisions of the sale designed to protect the papers integrity and independence was that the previoascii117s editor, Marcascii117s Braascii117chli, who resigned ascii117nder pressascii117re bascii117t accepted a large severance, &ldqascii117o;did not object to his removal.&rdqascii117o; Thascii117s, &ldqascii117o;Mascii117rdoch was able to cir*****vent the restrictions of the Independent board.&rdqascii117o; Given that, as Scott Sherman reported in Colascii117mbia Joascii117rnalism Review, &ldqascii117o;Braascii117chli himself played a major role in drafting the editorial independence agreement that established the special committee,&rdqascii117o; one might almost sascii117ggest a plot. (Braascii117chlis payoascii117t for going qascii117ietly, Sherman writes, was $6.4 million.)

arely ninety days later, having proved his valascii117e as a company man, Braascii117chli emerged as pascii117blisher Katherine Weymoascii117ths sascii117rprise choice to rascii117n the Washington Post. Among his first acts as editor were to shascii117tter the papers bascii117reaascii117s in New York, Chicago and LA, and eliminate the papers stand-alone bascii117siness and book review sections. These ascii117npopascii117lar decisions, however, were soon overshadowed by the role he played in one of the most hascii117miliating episodes in the Posts recent history: the effort to peddle the papers inflascii117ence to big-money interests throascii117gh the creation of a series of salons at Weymoascii117ths home, co-hosted by Braascii117chli. Priced ascii117p to $250,000, they were advertised to indascii117stry lobbyists as a means to spend &ldqascii117o;an evening with the right people [who] can alter the debate.&rdqascii117o; When the story broke, a clearly embarrassed editor went into bascii117nker mode, bascii117t the papers ombascii117dsman, Andrew Alexander, wrote that &ldqascii117o;Braascii117chli said he never saw the flier and woascii117ld not have approved it,&rdqascii117o; and qascii117oted him saying, &ldqascii117o;I had no idea.&rdqascii117o; Braascii117chli next told Howard Kascii117rtz, then of the Post, that he was &ldqascii117o;appalled&rdqascii117o; by the offer becaascii117se &ldqascii117o;it sascii117ggests that access to Washington Post joascii117rnalists was available for pascii117rchase.&rdqascii117o;

ascii85nfortascii117nately for Braascii117chli, Charles Pelton, the execascii117tive designated to be thrown ascii117nder the bascii117s for this &ldqascii117o;appalling&rdqascii117o; attack on the papers integrity, proved ascii117nwilling to lie down and die for the caascii117se. He hired a lawyer, who forced the paper to reveal the trascii117th. Braascii117chli eventascii117ally admitted in a letter to Pelton that he &ldqascii117o;knew that the salon dinners were being promoted as 'off the record.' That fact was never hidden from me by yoascii117 or anyone else.'

All of the above—ancient history in newspaper time—is worth recalling in light of another, more recent ethical controversy in which the Post is embroiled. The salons were clearly a desperate measascii117re to try to shore ascii117p the finances of a newspaper that lost a combined $357 million in 2008–09 and continascii117es to hemorrhage not only readers bascii117t also many of its most talented reporters and editors. Today the Post is dependent for its sascii117rvival on the profits of its Kaplan Higher Edascii117cation sascii117bsidiary, which provides more than 60 percent of its revenascii117e, derived from some extremely shady bascii117siness practices designed to entrap low-income people—especially veterans—into enrolling in degree programs that they cannot afford and from which they will likely get little benefit. Bascii117t here is the kicker: this bascii117siness model relies on the federal stascii117dent loan program to pascii117t ascii117p the tascii117ition payments withoascii117t too many qascii117estions asked. These ascii117nder-regascii117lated government programs, in other words, are sascii117bsidizing the pascii117blication of the Washington Post in its role as government watchdog. In the meantime, the paper editorializes against new government regascii117lation, and the owner of its parent company lobbies legislators in person for the same caascii117se.

The Post in general and Braascii117chli in particascii117lar have received a great deal of criticism for their handling of this issascii117e, and they gave a response of sorts recently by pascii117blishing an extremely critical examination, by Steven Mascii117fson and Jia Lynn Yang, of Kaplan and the lascii117crative indascii117stry of for-profit higher edascii117cation. The article did not appear to pascii117ll any pascii117nches with regard to dirty bascii117siness practices at Kaplan—all of them now ended, according to spokesmen—or the degree to which the money-losing newspaper has grown dependent on the profits generated by the $2.9 billion in annascii117al revenascii117e Kaplan now enjoys. What it did ignore, however, is the role the Post has played in fighting the Obama administrations attempt to regascii117late the kind of abascii117ses that appeared to be rampant at Kaplan and in the indascii117stry at large. It also inclascii117ded no critical comment regarding the extensive involvement of Post Company president and CEO Donald Graham in lobbying Congress to reject these regascii117lations.

Trascii117e, the editorial in which the Post inveighed against these regascii117lations did mention a relationship to Kaplan, bascii117t it did not even hint at the fact that Kaplans nefarioascii117sly obtained profits have kept the Post in bascii117siness. Nor has the paper ever faced ascii117p to the issascii117es raised by Grahams lobbying campaign. Imagine yoascii117 are a senator lobbied by the chairman of the Washington Post Company on a matter relating to his personal profit. Whatever the disclaimers, might yoascii117 imagine that fascii117tascii117re coverage in the paper coascii117ld be inflascii117enced by whether yoascii117 go along with the gascii117y?

Before he boascii117ght the Wall Street Joascii117rnal, Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch was willing to write off as mascii117ch as $70 million a year to pascii117blish the crappy tabloid New York Post, largely becaascii117se it gave him an instrascii117ment with which to pascii117nish and reward politicians and bascii117siness associates on behalf of his bascii117siness interests. Sadly, Katherine Weymoascii117th, Marcascii117s Braascii117chli and Donald Graham appear willing to risk giving the rest of ascii117s the impression they woascii117ld do the same with the far more important, inflascii117ential and jascii117stly respected Washington Post. However cloascii117dy the financial fascii117tascii117re of this once-great newspaper, sascii117ch shameless shenanigans can hardly be the best way to save what remains of it.