Decline—and fall?—at the Washington Post

Who knew that the latest chapter in the sad decline of mainstream American journalism would take place at the Washington Post?

A sorry episode involving the paper that spoke truth to power during the Watergate scandal began quietly last month, with a press release about a new digital publication called “The Fiscal Times.” According to the release, TFT’s purpose is to report on U.S. fiscal, budgetary, and economic issues that the struggling corporate-owned media increasingly lack the resources to cover regularly.
TFT, with a staff of veteran Washington reporters, “will provide supplemental content to publications for free,” said the release, “benefiting from the exposure of a byline in established platforms.” It had already formed a “content-sharing agreement” with one major daily: the Washington Post, whose executive editor, Marcus Brauchli, CC ‘83, will be the keynote speaker at the Spectator’s annual Blue Pencil Dinner on Feb. 13.

On the surface, it all sounded fine. U.S. fiscal policy and the federal budget process affect us all and deserve more coverage. TFT, evidently, is just the latest in a new collection of nonprofit, nontraditional news organizations, like Politico.com and ProPublica.org, rushing to fill gaps in mainstream news.

Or is it? TFT is bankrolled by Pete Peterson, the Wall Street baron who co-founded hedge fund giant the Blackstone Group. Peterson has also been crusading for 30 years to convince Americans that the nation is on the verge of bankruptcy, the only solution being drastic cuts in domestic social programs like Social Security and Medicare. While he’s managed to convince some powerful figures, including members of Congress, plenty of prominent economists disagree. They point out that millions of vulnerable people would be thrown into poverty if his prescriptions were ever adopted.

The Post published its first TFT-supplied article on Dec. 31. It was predictably biased and misleading. It misreported that an effort was gaining ground to pass a bill attempting to force Congress to vote up or down on a package of deep budget cuts. The article downplayed serious opposition from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. It contained quotes from several experts who agree with Peterson’s views, but none opposed to them.

Most seriously, the original article failed to mention that TFT is funded by Peterson. No surprise that a storm of protest broke over the Post as soon as the article was published. Over 40 national progressive organizations called upon the Post to end its agreement with TFT.

Rather than rethink a disturbing breach of journalistic standards, however, the paper replied with weak and unconvincing apologetics. Brauchli insisted the Post’s editors retained “complete editorial control” over the article. The Post’s ombudsman, who’s supposed to investigate complaints about the paper’s standards and practices, parroted assurances from Peterson that he doesn’t exercise content control over TFT’s “quality journalists.” Yet Peterson’s son is in charge of personnel for TFT (according to the New York Times), and its board is heavily weighted with people known to support Peterson’s extreme views.

As Spectator alumni, we find the Post’s tie-up with “The Fiscal Times” disturbing for several reasons. This is not merely a problem of “perception,” as the Post’s editors seem to think. One of the country’s leading newspapers is lending its prestige to a transparently biased organization masquerading as a news source. Other media outlets, lacking the Post’s Capitol Hill staff, may decide they, too, can rely on TFT for their coverage of fiscal and budget matters. In the future, the only exposure that millions of Americans get to these important issues may come from TFT’s skewed dispatches.

We are dismayed to find a distinguished journalist like Marcus Brauchli implementing and then defending his paper’s relationship with TFT. Some of us have fond memories of working with Marcus at the Spectator. We followed his fine career at the Wall Street Journal and were outraged by the shabby dismissal he received when Rupert Murdoch took over that paper. That’s why it’s so disheartening to see him defend a practice that threatens a distinguished paper’s good name and encourages one of the more troubling trends in journalism today.

More and more of the news Americans get is likely to come from “nontraditional” organizations propping up the mainstream media’s coverage. Some are genuinely nonpartisan and provide a needed service. However, TFT’s efforts to sell itself as a legitimate news source make it obvious that standards are needed. If they want to retain their reputation as honest suppliers of news and analysis, mainstream media need to steer way clear of organizations that depend on figures with agendas as obvious as Pete Peterson’s.

But if the Post and other financially challenged newspapers decide to solve their problems by turning themselves into vehicles for propaganda, it will only hasten their extinction.

Jeremy Feldman was Spectator's co-production manager, 1983-84. Aaron Freiwald was editor-in-chief, 1983-84. Elizabeth Greene was editorial page editor, 1983-84. Gabe Kuperminc was photography editor, 1983-85 and the Broadway photography editor, 1985-86. Eric Laursen was features editor, 1982-83. Bram Moreinis was night editor, 1984. Ian O’Brien was photography editor, 1983. Nick Romanenko was photography editor, 1980-82.