According to a report posted at Politico.com available
here, the specific event has been canceled.
However, the Washington Post's publisher, Ms. Katharine Weymouth, holds to the concept of a newspaper hosting events that sound similiar in aim. She said:
Quote:
|
We do believe that there is a viable way to expand our expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what we do - cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in Washington....And we will begin to do live events in ways that enhance our reputation and in no way call into question our integrity.
|
In my mind, the key word here is "viable". Does Ms. Weymouth mean events that are profitable in their own right? Or does she mean events that pay for themselves and the pay off comes as the events widen the paper's readership by enhancing its reputation?
Even if one grants her the benefit of the doubt--a difficult exercise given the fact that the initial idea was ever planned and canceled only after the public uproar--is this an appropriate way for a publisher of to market an American broadsheet? Ultimately, this practice will mean that a newspaper will be staging events which it can then cover as news and scoop the competition. (Which means that the
Washington Post's business plan is to become the Hollywood Foreign Press.
)