The larger number of our Atlantic Media dinners are sponsored, though I host some for my own interest and on my own account. (Please note that the whole of this discussion concerns dinners that we do with clients. As you may have read, I personally convene a group of journalists to conduct off-the-record conversations with individuals in the news. Those dinners are covered by me personally and have no sponsorship involvement or support.)
Of our events that are sponsored, most are sponsored by corporations, though nonprofits and foundations have sponsored dinners as well. Sponsors may have input on the evening but, by contract, Atlantic Media keeps control of both the topic for conversation and the guests to be invited.
The dinners usually run about two and a half hours. If I am there, I give welcoming remarks and thank the sponsor. Most of the time, the sponsor responds with his or her own welcoming remarks. Then, and for the remainder, our moderator - typically an Atlantic Media editor or writer, though sometimes a journalist from another enterprise - directs the whole table in conversation. There is no constraint placed on either the moderator or our guests as to the questions raised or the opinions expressed. My presence - as to all things - tends to dampen high spirits. But even when I am there, the conversations are pretty highly engaged, with one or more issues that divide the group.
When Atlantic Media hosts public-policy dinners in Washington, we usually - though not always - invite members of Congress or the Executive Branch to attend as well. Never the object of the conversation, they generally constitute one to four of the total of, say, 30 guests present. There is a set of public rules governing the participation of officials in private events. Atlantic Media follows these rules - in letter and in spirit.
To my mind, and central to our thinking, the size of our dinners, the presence of outside reporters and the representation of all manner of opposing views have worked well to keep conversation at the level of debate - not advancing any one party's interests.
Let me turn to some of the concerns I've seen raised since The Washington Post controversy began.
Secrecy: Atlantic Media has been hosting public-policy dinners for a half-dozen years. Our work is not hidden within the enterprise or from the outside. Over the years, we have sent out thousands of invitations to these events. Two thousand guests have been in attendance. Further, from the beginning, we have included, as guests, journalists from virtually all major networks, national magazines and newspapers; scores of journalists have been our guests across the last six years, many more than once.
Atlantic Media Motives: Isn't this just commercial? In part. As the whole of our enterprise surely knows, the economic foundation beneath journalism is falling away. Ten years ago, 55% of The Atlantic's revenues derived from print advertising. Today, that figure is 29%. I think I will be more comfortable, still, when that dependence falls below 20%. The imperative, as I see it, is to rebuild journalism on different financial pillars. One of them, and not inconsequential to us, is events - of all types.
I say "in part," above, because I believe the dinners, themselves, perform a good purpose. Perhaps the guests merely are being polite, but the uniform comment - on leaving or in thank you notes - is that they find no other place for such purposeful, engaged, constructive conversation across walls. Are dinners my highest faith system, my most important belief? No. But, I see the Atlantic Media dinners as a certain good in Washington.
Off-the-Record: The decision to convene our dinners off-the-record was made at the outset. In the vocabulary we used at that time, we were hoping to avoid the "canned remarks and rehearsed sound bites" that come with much public-policy discussion. My own view is that there is a great deal of constructive conversation that can take place only with the promise that no headline is being written. Everyone - maybe even especially journalists - relies on this confidence in his day-to-day work.
This said, I do want to be teachable. I could understand editors or writers deciding they prefer to participate only in on-the-record conversations. I care more about editorial integrity than I do about any particular undertaking; you can trust that, as to this issue, I am fully engaged.
Editorial Staff Involvement: From the first, the dinners were the conception of our publishing staff. They were, and are, one of our revenue streams. But, as noted above, I believe the dinners advance a legitimate purpose for a media organization - promoting debate and discussion.
Our senior editors and reporters have been engaged in this work from the first - thinking through appropriate involvement, structuring the role of the moderator, thinking through, and then leading, individual dinner conversations. I am responsible for our strategy but editorial minds have been "on" from the first. I believe our editors would say the public-policy discussions help as background in their thinking and writing.
Marketing Materials: The Washington Post's Katharine Weymouth had not begun, in fact, the hosting of policy dinners; I am six years into this work. What we do share in common is that I, too, had not read our marketing materials. I don't believe ours are egregious but I now know they do not all reflect the central fact of our conversations - dialogue and debate, without the advance of a particular interest. Due diligence now begun, we will make sure that future materials reflect exactly the spirit and facts of the dinners.
Reading my notes to myself, I think I'm reaching the close of this writing. Save that I said I would end with a caveat.
]]>
I love the work of our public-policy dinners. The issues at table interest me greatly. Further, and this is a modest brag, I think I'm well suited to convening intelligent, committed people across wide divides. There are leadership gifts that I would prefer, but my lot includes a big measure of listening and deference to others' views.
As to the dinners themselves, I think they are full of good purpose. In their intelligent discussion of great public issues, they mirror the work of our magazines and websites. And, not inconsequential, the dinners in particular, but events more generally, are part of my best thinking on how we carry forward (read fund) modern journalism.
Due diligence NOW begun?
Right. And we should just trust you on that?
Quid pro quo. Goodbye Atlantic.
Imagine my lack of surprise...
]]>
I mean, come on. Please. Geeesh. Pretend I'm Joan Q. Citizen. Do I really still need some guy deciding for me that something isn't egregious? Just show me a couple samples of the Atlantic's marketing pieces. Then I'll compare them to the Washington Post piece and then I'll decide what I decide. THAT'S HOW IT WORKS TODAY, RIGHT?
I thought you guys were journalists, for goodness sakes. How about some real journaling instead of this fake cover our asses stuff?
Good grief. And this whole post was supposed to reassure readers? Yikeys.
1) they all have an agenda,
2) are in bed with the politicians,
3) are more in league with politicians than watchdogs and
4) long ago abandoned independence
This is what they are talking about.
Now I am not going to begrudge you the dinners. It sounds fun, and a dream job for me really. You get to hang out with big important people and talk politics.
I get that you have to make money. I am not against making money. Maybe this development is an inevitability and blame should not be assigned. Just to be safe, I will not assign blame. So, simply as a matter of cause and effect:
This sort of thing is -exactly- why nobody is trusting traditional media any more.
]]>Many most engaging articles I have read over the past 10 years have all come from The Atlantic; if the salons play a positive role in content development for the magazine, I hope they continue.
]]>Surely you could show your readers the courtesy of making public the promotional material for these 'salons'?
And, why not have a journalist have a look at these off-the-record events, examining how they influence (or not) public policy, etc.? (You know, good old-fashioned investigative reporting...)
]]>While the rest of us are tightening our belts, the Atlantic and its ilk are holding (expensive) salons with customers, advertisers, pundits, leaders, who supposedly espouse different and contrasting perpectives, ideologies, etc. Yet, oddly, we get the same old same old lefty pabulum. How can this be? Maybe you need to hold yet another salon to figure that out. I don't know where the money is coming from to pay for all these self-indulgent salons, but it won't be me.
]]>In the case of the Post, it troubles me because the Post's primary journalistic role is the production of new information from an ostensibly unbiased perspective. The Atlantic is more about analysis and opinion, and as such one assumes that biases are going to be visible in the reporting.
What bothers me more is the "ostensibly unbiased perspective." To my mind, good reporting has to thread a needle. On one side, it has to avoid pretending to be unbiased when it is not. By pretending that the journalistic apparatus is unbiased "just the facts" reporting on behalf of a public with the right to know, journalism sets up numerous lies of omission and commission, which the occasional disclosure statements do not even scratch the surface of. I mean, there's no bias introduced by these salons that runs deeper than, say, the fact that reporters have actual political opinions and vote for people while supposedly covering them objectively.
On the other side, journalism needs to avoid bias that goes beyond a search for truth and towards pushing an agenda. It is a fundamentally different thing when a journalist advances a view because he believes it to be accurate, and when he does so because he views his job as advancing that view. CNN's reliance on partisan hacks for talking heads errs egregiously in this regard - pretending that Paul Begala or Alex Castelanos have anything genuine to say about a news story is just a crass lie.
These salons risk the latter impropriety, if journalists come to view their corporate sponsors as people they are beholden to in content. But on the other hand, if they are actually sites of genuine debate and exchange of views, and if the journalists keep to their job of providing truth, they have a clear and visible benefit.
In the end, it comes down to the journalists in question and how much one trusts them. And it is easier to trust a journalist writing for a magazine like The Atlantic, where opinions and biases are acknowledged and grappled with rather than hidden, and where the reporter is a present figure as opposed to someone trying desperately to hide and pretend that they're being objective.
]]>You, your boss and the Atlantic are not journalism. The accurate word is "prostitution".
My own view is that there is a great deal of constructive conversation that can take place only with the promise that no headline is being written.
If anybody else had such meetings with public officials (and of course they do), they would be savaged by the press for not being "open." How many editorials were penned lambasting the secrecy of Dick Cheney's energy commission, or of Hillary Clinton's long-dead health care reform committee? There was no trust given there by the media, no assumption that the parties were merely trying to have real, solid, constructive conversation on difficult issues, the type of conversations that "can take place only with the promise that no headline is being written."
With that statement, and I agree that it is a true statement because of the fairly low character of many of our leaders in the public and private sector, David Bradley has just announced that every open Congressional hearing is a farce, that real, honest, constructive, and public debate is no longer possible in this country.
That statement is further a reflection of the arrogance of the professional media class who have appointed themselves as the arbiters in our society. Bradley asks us to trust him, his ability (and The Atlantic's) to be unbiased, to select real guests from all of the "responsible" sides of the issues, and to do so with no improper ulterior motives. For all I know, Bradley's a great guy and really good at identifying such people, and they're all great big, highminded Fred Friendly-type seminars. But I have no particular reason to trust David Bradley or The Atlantic. And there's no other institution in our society, other than (a bit) blogs, to keep watch on the journalists who have appointed themselves our moral arbiters.
]]>We don't need an apologist to spin the ethics of the situation. And the fact that many do it doesn't make it acceptable in the slightest.
It isn't like we trusted you all to begin with, the way the media in general has so obviously carried water for the big money interests since the 1980s. Now we have a little insight into the mechanisms with which your favor is purchased. Until now, we wrote it off as exclusively advertising revenue, never imaging you had the chutzpah to prostitute yourselves so directly. Will wonders never cease?
In closing, for your next "salon," be sure to express our profound gratitude to the sponsor for demolishing what was left of journalism in America. By your actions, and those like you, the rush of a totally propagandized citizenry to fascist totalitarianism is assured.
]]>Mind you, I'm not worried about quid pro quos or special deals. What worries me is this scenario:
A respected economist or political commentator has read the White House's new plan to fix, say, health care. And he's had nagging doubts about a particular element of that plan. He's hinted at them once or twice in his writing, but hasn't really hit the issue head on yet. He goes to a dinner where the administration official responsible is two seats over. They get to talking - about the ski lodge in Boulder that they both love. After a minute, the commentator asks to speak seriously. But the mood is convivial, the wine is flowing, and "this guy skis where I ski." The question gets asked, but not so aggressively as it might have been. The official smoothes over it, and while he's a bit vague about a few things, the commentator feels like the guy knows what he's getting at and he seems like he's pretty sharp, maybe he [the commentator] is the one who missed that bit of info that would have either heightened or alleviated skepticism and the official actually addressed it. The next morning, the commentator sits down and writes a piece... about something entirely unrelated because he can't write about the off the record dinner and how he met the guy who wrote the plan and he's not sure his questions were answered but he thinks it might be his fault...
If The Atlantic wishes to present itself as a vehicle for disseminating elite opinion - which is how I've always viewed it anyway - these dinners ought to help. If it wishes to think itself an independent voice, there to present sophisticated analysis so that people can make up their own minds intelligently, though, there may be a problem.
]]>As a non-journalist, this and any other paid opportunity that's not by a journalistic employer has always struck me as a severe conflict of interest. Isn't it objectionable if governmental officials did such a thing? Why should reporters be different? Obviously from the point of view of most reporters it's desirable to increase income, but why shouldn't readers think this severely decreases the reporter's credibility? Contrawise, if it's okay for reporters to take money from other sources, why shouldn't it be fine for government officials to do so? What's the distinction in assumed bias, or at least appearance of potential bias, by being paid being made here?
]]>Why, exactly, can't people have conversations without taking pay-offs? How is this different from elected representatives granting additional (legal) access to those who make significant contributions to campaign funds, or for taking illegal bribes? Obviously in the latter case, one is illegal, but how, exactly, do the ethics differ?
"I care more about editorial integrity than I do about any particular undertaking."
Then perhaps you shouldn't take what have the appearance of bribes. I understand the self-interest at work here perfectly well, but it also seems obvious (from the point of view of at least one outsider) that if you cared more about editorial integrity than taking money from outside sources, that you wouldn't take the money and ask readers to just trust that it doesn't affect you. Again, maybe it doesn't affect you, but as a rule do we generally expect, in society, that taking money from people has no effect? If not, why would journalists and journalistic enterprises be an exception?
"I love the work of our public-policy dinners. The issues at table interest me greatly."
I believe you. But if they're so mutually beneficial in and of themselves, why does money need to change hands?
]]>I can see how your little soirees benefit you, Mr. Bradley, but how do they benefit me, the consumer of news and opinion? How much of your content is shaped by information to which I have no access? How can I judge its trustworthiness if I have no knowledge of its source? You say your dinner guests are chosen from a broad spectrum of political, ideological and social thought, but since the identity of the participants is off the record, I have no way of ascertaining if that's actually true. Who knows what you consider "conservative," "liberal," "mainstream" (for example, for years journalists regarded the National Organization for Women as the definitive go-to source for all matters female despite the fact that it represents a rather parochial point of view).
The whole thing smacks of an arrogant elitism. You will be the keeper of the public trust. You will decide which pieces of information will be disseminated to the common folk and which will be held back (but only for our own good surely). You will be the arbiter of what is to be known and what is to be left unknown. But, not to worry, you can be trusted. You, after all, are "well suited to convening intelligent, committed people across wide divides." And that's all we apparently need to know.
I wasn't sure it was possible, but it seems my contempt for your "profession" has been ratcheted up a few notches. Congratulations.
]]>can you not host public, on-the-record conversations and avoid all this? otherwise it just seems to me that you're taking money from people and corporations for the *privilege* of having dinner and conversation with you...
not only is it ethically questionable, but its also just a bit snobbish as well.
]]>You must not read Mark Bowden's puff pieces on the latest, greatest weapon systems. Like the F-22.
]]>