Broder's Bucks

Post ombudsman Deborah Howell follows up on David Broder's buckraking speeches:

The NAM, the ACCF and the national parents of the Minnesota group and Northern Virginia Realtors do lobby Congress. Broder later said he broke the rules on those speeches. He also said he had cleared his speeches with Milton Coleman, deputy managing editor, or Tom Wilkinson, an assistant managing editor, but neither remembered him mentioning them. Wilkinson said Broder had cleared speeches in the past. Editors should have been consulted on all of the speeches as well as the cruise.

"I am embarrassed by these mistakes and the embarrassment it has caused the paper,'' Broder said.

Is it just me, or does this seem a little unsatisfying as a resolution? Broder broke the basic norms of professional conduct, and he broke the specific procedural rules of The Washington Post, and never disclosed these conflicts of interest, then he got caught, and now he's sorry so we just wash our hands of the whole thing because, after all, he's the Dean? That's that, I suppose, but it tells you what kind of business I'm in. Imagine the press's treatment of a politician caught up in a serious scandal we tried to get away with just mumbling "sorry." I can't imagine Mark Foley or Elliot Spitzer getting away with that.

Comments

Of course, Mark Foley (soliciting sex from minors) and Elliot Spitzer (prostitution across state lines) both broke the law which isn't quite analogous with what Broder's actions, while unethical, were.

Posted by jbryan | June 21, 2008 12:30 PM

Hey, it's all part and parcel of Teh New Responsibility. Get caught doing something that in the old days, would demand consequences? Just stride to the mic, preferably with wife in tow, say "I take full responsibility", and then walk away. It's enough to satisfy the Villagers, who are apparently now emulating the tactic.

Posted by Anna Granfors | June 21, 2008 12:33 PM

While I don't substantively disagree with you Matt, I would point out that Broder took the buy-out. I'm guessing that they may have taken harsher disciplinary action were it not for the fact that he's heading out the door anyway.

Doesn't excuse them, but it is a likely explanation.

And I have to agree with jbryan that your analogy is forced. A better one would be Dodd and Baucus and their special treatment on loans.

Posted by Charlie | June 21, 2008 12:35 PM

While I don't substantively disagree with you Matt, I would point out that Broder took the buy-out. I'm guessing that they may have taken harsher disciplinary action were it not for the fact that he's heading out the door anyway.

Doesn't excuse them, but it is a likely explanation.

And I have to agree with jbryan that your analogy is forced. A better one would be Dodd and Baucus and their special treatment on loans.

Posted by Charlie | June 21, 2008 12:35 PM

Could David Vitter get away with it?

Magic Eightball says: Yes, apparently.

Posted by Victor Von Doom | June 21, 2008 12:37 PM

the establishment protects its own, but my favorite part of the story is the way that Coleman and Wilkinson essentially say that broder is lying....

Posted by howard | June 21, 2008 12:47 PM

Broder's behavior isn't illegal, but it is really quite astounding. Broder didn't know the rules? 'The' David Broder? I think this deserves more than just a little hyperventilation.

Posted by MattF | June 21, 2008 12:50 PM

If the problem with Foley and Spitzer was that they broke the law, why has neither faced any legal consequences?

And Vitter seems to have done pretty well with the "I'm sorry" defense.

Posted by KCinDC | June 21, 2008 12:51 PM

Spitzer et al. are public officials, they are (notionally) accountable to the voters. Washington Post is a private company that is only accountable to its shareholders.

Privately held media company have no public responsibilities, which the last ten years should have proven, and the bleatings of their employees to the contrary prove that said employees are either liars or fools.

Posted by Delicious Pundti | June 21, 2008 12:51 PM

Foley and Spitzer were about sex. Broder is about greed. Greed is good. Is it clear now?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JaKkuJVy2YA

Posted by aleks | June 21, 2008 12:59 PM

the idea that Broder who has worked at the Post since the dawn of time, just FORGOT the most basic rules of ethical journalism is a joke. like the criminal politicians that Broder defends and emulates he is a corrupt member of the power elite, in other words a first=class scumbag. (By the way his perspicacious insight and prediction that Bush would reclaim his "popularity" seems to be a touch off base...pretty much like everything Broder says).

Posted by della Rovere | June 21, 2008 1:00 PM

Charlie:
Yes, Broder took the buy-out but he isn;t going anywhere. He's now on contract(which means the WaPo doesn't have to pay any of his health care or contribute to his 401k). He's not actually giving up writing for the paper.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 21, 2008 1:05 PM

Broder's ethical lapses are small beer when compared to what goes on in Congress all the time. Here is a perfect expample, and if this doesn't pi$$ you off there's no hope:

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

Posted by kafka | June 21, 2008 1:07 PM

At least Broder said "sorry." McCain breaks campaign finance laws, Geoge Bush breaks all sorts of laws and they say "I didn't do it" and the press moves on.

Posted by Fred F. | June 21, 2008 1:15 PM

Well, this should earn the ideologically ambiguous Broder some love with the conservatives: after all, hasn't it become conservative and Protestant chic to flout morality and then make a showy apology which is supposed to absolve you?

The new morality is breaking the rules and then acting like you're rilly, rilly sorry about it, rilly; just like the new weltanschauung is believing that the blue states must be corrupt and immoral just because (1) you've lived in a red state your whole life, (2) the immorality you've observed while living there stings your hick-rebel pride, and (3) therefore it has to be all the blue states' fault, and the blue states must have worse crime, worse families, worse teenagers, worse everything-- until you look at the facts and realize that explanation is exactly backwards.

Remember that Republican-hack-quote about how they can change the whole reality of everything, and then we'll all have to settle for it? Boy, have they ever.

Posted by Swan | June 21, 2008 1:16 PM

Broder's hypocracy should not be a surprise just now. I did think there needed to be more of a sanction (as it seems Broder's buyout is like Dracula's death, not wholly what it seems.)
And though I am opposed in principle to journalists (or bloggers for that matter) taking money that would change their written output, I think we could manage to stretch the principle for at least some WaPo columnists. I imagine many Post readers and TV viewers would pay to keep Mr. Novak and Dr. Krauthammer from polluting the public airwaves..

Posted by MR Bill | June 21, 2008 1:25 PM

The MSM always has had its own little double standard. The almighty Broder deserves to be canned for this egregious breach, but it'll never happen.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | June 21, 2008 1:38 PM

Broder's buyout is meaningless. Basically it allows him to "retire", somethign that wasn't going to happen save long illness, to continue writing at the same pace for likely close to the same amount of money if not more and he gets a cash bonus.

Posted by Rob | June 21, 2008 1:45 PM

I admit to feeling a bit sorry for the old man. He's truly ending his career - the defender of all things moderate Republican-ish - in disgrace. Much like the moderate Republicans, actually - those last hardy Maine senators and Connecticut Reps, who all went down the path with Bush and will never come back again.

But surely his time as a columnist is coming to a close. The betting is on. Will the Post chose James Kirchik as its new columnist - young, gay, rancidly reactionary - or will they seek out some NRO stalwart like Ramesh Ponnuru - young, Asian American, and rancidly reactionary? I guess I shouldn't underestimate the beating they have suffered for their habitual misogyny and lack of female columnists, so it could be a woman - I don't think even Hiatt would dare to put Anne Coulter in that position, but Michelle Malkin certainly has some strong supporters on the Post, and Laura Ingraham might be coming up fast. Ingraham would function well in the insanity slot currently held by Krauthammer.

Posted by roger | June 21, 2008 2:19 PM

"...what kind of business I'm in." ??

You're in the same business as David Broder in your dreams, Matt.

Posted by robert powell | June 21, 2008 2:45 PM

You're in the same business as David Broder in your dreams, Matt.

He's in exactly the same business. Broder isn't paid big bucks to write. He's paid big bucks to repeat the party line. Broder isn't a stylist. He's got no appreciable insight or wisdom. Essentially, he won a version of The Lottery.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 21, 2008 2:58 PM

Where can I redeem my Broder Bucks? My local Walgreens won't take them.

Posted by mts771 | June 21, 2008 3:08 PM

If all of this keeps up, I'm going to be chanting "Ron Paul! Ron Paul!" on a street corner soon.

Posted by jim | June 21, 2008 3:12 PM

I forgot George Will..
"Published on Friday, January 2, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
George Will's Ethics: None of Our Business?
by Norman Solomon

We can argue about George Will's political views. But there's no need to debate his professional ethics.

Late December brought to light a pair of self-inflicted wounds to the famous columnist's ethical pretensions. He broke an elementary rule of journalism -- and then, when the New York Times called him on it, proclaimed the transgression to be no one's business but his own.

It turns out that George Will was among a number of prominent individuals to receive $25,000 per day of conversation on a board of advisers for Hollinger International, a newspaper firm controlled by magnate Conrad Black. Although Will has often scorned the convenient forgetfulness of others, the Times reported that "Mr. Will could not recall how many meetings he attended." But an aide confirmed the annual $25,000 fee.

Even for a wealthy commentator, that's a hefty paycheck for one day of talk. But it didn't stop Will from lavishing praise on Black in print -- without a word about their financial tie.

In early March, Will wrote a syndicated piece that blasted critics of President Bush's plans to launch an all-out war on Iraq. Several paragraphs of the column featured quotations from a speech by Black. The laudatory treatment began high in the column as Will referred to some criticisms of Bush policies and then wrote: "Into this welter of foolishness has waded Conrad Black."

The column did not contain the slightest hint that this wonderful foe of "foolishness" had provided checks to fatten the columnist's assets at $25,000 a pop.

But Will claimed in a December interview that nothing was amiss. "Asked in the interview if he should have told his readers of the payments he had received from Hollinger," a New York Times article reported on Dec. 22, "Mr. Will said he saw no reason to do so."

The Times quoted Will as saying: "My business is my business. Got it?" "

Posted by MR Bill | June 21, 2008 3:20 PM

Is it fair to say Dodd violated ethics in the manner of Broder? Dodd claims he received no monetary benefits beyond the courtesy of "VIP" personal and expeditious service. The benefits to Broder were openly stated in dollars--lots of them, and clearly violated the rules under which he was employed.

Posted by Fermi Pyle | June 21, 2008 4:31 PM

Oh, right, Matt, and I suppose you never take five-figure speaking fees from real estate lobbies. OK, so maybe you never do. But you know you would. I mean, I would. Wouldn't you? What, you wouldn't?

Posted by SqueakyRat | June 21, 2008 4:42 PM

Jeffrey Davis wrote,

Broder isn't a stylist.

Not true. He traffics heavily in rancid cliches.

Posted by liberal | June 21, 2008 5:21 PM

Charlie: Don't you mean Dodd and Dorgan? In any case, we have to keep in mind that this crew is held in lower regard than the Congress by the public. And they really don't like criticism.

Posted by ploughjogger | June 21, 2008 5:43 PM

I am disgusted with you and your ethics Mr. Broder.

You have come here, and trashed the place, and it wasn't your place to trash.

Posted by Andruw | June 21, 2008 6:38 PM

Ah yes, the "Dean" of Beltway "Journalists." He makes more in an hour of a speech than I'll make in three years. Yet he thinks he can understand me and my problems by going to Waffle House and gawking at me and my family as if we were zoo animals. The press it out of touch. They make too much and no longer have anything in common with middle America...

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | June 21, 2008 9:39 PM

"Mistakes"?

Shit, I'm surprised Dean Broder didn't borrow from the government chattering class whose ass he kisses and say "mistakes were made."

Woody is even worse, with what is, in essence, charity money laundering; here’s my take.

Posted by SocraticGadfly | June 21, 2008 11:47 PM