Ed Morrissey:

The Washington Post tried to explain away its “salons”, which basically sold off-the-record access to the Post’s journalists and government officials for lobbyists, as a misunderstanding and mistaken marketing campaign by one of its executives.  WaPo ombud Andrew Alexander demolishes the cover story that made Charles Pelton the fall guy, and clearly shows that both publisher Katharine Weymouth and executive editor Marcus Brauchli not only knew that the salons provoked serious ethics questions, their chosen fall guy raised them before producing the fliers that exposed the program (emphases mine, viaInstapundit).

The ombudsman himself:

Publisher Katharine Weymouth and Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli have now taken full responsibility for what was envisioned as a series of 11 intimate dinners to discuss public policy issues. For a fee of up to $25,000, underwriters were guaranteed a seat at the table with lawmakers, administration officials, think tank experts, business leaders and the heads of associations. Promotional materials said Weymouth, Brauchli and at least one Post reporter would serve as “Hosts and Discussion Leaders” for an evening of spirited but civil dialogue.

While Brauchli and Weymouth say they should have realized long ago that the plan was flawed, internal e-mails and interviews show questions about ethics were raised with both of them months ago. They also show that blame runs deeper. Beneath Brauchli and Weymouth, three of the most senior newsroom managers received an e-mail with details of the plan.

Lower down, others inside and outside the newsroom were aware that sponsored events would involve news personnel in off-the-record settings, although they lacked details. Several now say they didn’t speak up because they assumed top managers would eventually ensure that traditional ethics boundaries would not be breached. …

Some at The Post view Pelton as overly eager and not attuned to the newsroom’s ethical sensitivities. But Pelton raised questions about some of those very issues in a May 21 e-mail to Weymouth, Brauchli and Stephen P. Hills, The Post’s president and general manager. Pelton reports to Hills, who declined to be interviewed.

The e-mail said the plan to hold the dinners at Weymouth’s home “speaks to heavy editorial involvement” through “mixing different editors and beat reporters.” But in arguing for “background only” discussions, Pelton asked if they thought the discussions should be “on or off the record.” And while he endorsed the sponsorship idea, noting there would always be “more than one,” he also said “I want to be sure our newsroom is also comfortable” with the arrangement.

Within an hour of receiving the e-mail, Brauchli forwarded it to his top three editors — managing editors Raju Narisetti and Liz Spayd, as well as deputy managing editor Milton Coleman — asking their thoughts.

The Washington Post’s defense was, basically, that its marketing department lost its mind. Marketing gone crazy, something like that.

Although that did indeed sound like a reasonable excuse, ombudsman Andrew Alexander shows it to be a lie. The management knew about the plans to sell sponsorships of off-the-record “salons,” and approved them, despite receiving several warnings about ethical problems with holding such secret meetings.

Unlike the New York Times, the Washington Post is quite objective, at least in its news reporting. Where the NYT moved to the left in recent years, the WaPo did not change much at all. As such, it became my number two (national) American newspaper (behind the Wall Street Journal, of course). This controversy did a lot of damage to its reputation, and rightly so, however. If another major controversy follows in the coming two years or so, I’ll declare the WaPo dead as reliable news organization. In other words, one mistake – one controversy – is not fatal. Two, however, are.