Inaugural Fat Cats and Conflicts of Interest - WaPo LTTE

[TacticalPeek]

Inaugural Fat Cats and Conflicts of Interest

Saturday, January 1, 2005; Page A21

Money talks, but it does not seem to speak very loudly at The Post.

Buried deeply within the Dec. 19 Metro section I found a story that really gave me pause. I certainly am not surprised to see fat cats lining up at the trough to contribute to the presidential inauguration -- with the probable expectation of both access and a sympathetic hearing. But I was surprised to see The Post relegate the news of 14 $250,000 contributions and 10 contributions of $100,000 contributions on Page C7. This is nearly $5 million from a concentrated group of people and corporations whose membership is national in scope. What in heaven's name was it doing buried in Metro?


I am reminded of the administration's penchant for putting out controversial or bad news late on Friday afternoon in hopes of sliding it under the radar.

snip

-- Paul Imse

Falls Church



snip

What galled me was the one-sentence admission that The Washington Post Co. had contributed $100,000 to the first George W. Bush inaugural festivities. No self-respecting news organization should be contributing one cent to any politician -- regardless of political party -- if it hopes to have the respect of its readers.

It is particularly ironic that The Post would contribute to an administration that has taken governmental secrecy to a new art form, worked tirelessly to limit the public's access to health, food safety and environmental data, and is prosecuting two journalists for not revealing their sources in the "outing" of former CIA operative Valerie Plame (while the writer who carried the administration's water in the affair, Robert D. Novak, gets a free ride).

snip

-- Greg Howard

Fort Washington


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39995-2004Dec31.html



(Must be that wacky holiday crew.)

[ExclamationPoint]

1. They hide the news that's the newsiest n/t