for this:

"In which tortures, the Inquisition hath found one way to escape the generall clamour of the world against them, which is to torture to that heighth, that few survive, or come abroad after, to publish, how they have been tortured."

I'm a coward, yes, but I verily hate the "godly" (of that, I have no doubt--witness Glenn Beck, Hannity, et. al.) premise underlying all this stuff that we must torture any and all--conveniently designated by [guess who?] us!--, in order to determine the "truth." It's like an infection, that these thoughts circulate throughout the public body.

And kitt, let me acknowledge also that--no matter how depressing (and it really is)--you're right that these people

are under the self-deluded impression that they are only positing harmless and well thought out lawyer-like courtroom what ifs and shit, when in fact they are only positing shit, period.

And what really depresses me about this is that they--I assume--don't believe there are any consequences to this.

It's eerie how words written so long ago, can be so timely.

I don't think that bit was in Horton's article, but to me, it's most apropos for US. [It WAS a little difficult getting through the wierd spellings, though.]

Ezra's blog:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/the_lobbyist_salons.html

The Lobbyist Salons

I had the unhappy experience this morning of waking up to a story about my news organization offering lobbyists the opportunity to chat [...]

- - Ezra Klein | July 2, 2009; 10:57 AM EDT

__________

Ezra's previously scheduled online chat at noon, today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/06/30/DI2009063002114.html

Ezra Klein: Morning, folks. Been a weird day around the office, as you might imagine. But let's talk this out.

Washington, D.C.: Did you know about, or participate in, this? And do you feel that's an appropriate action for a newspaper?

Ezra Klein: No. No. And no. I was genuinely appalled when I read that this morning. From every angle, it's dirty: It compromises us with the government officials we should be covering but who are doing us a financial favor by participating. It compromises us with the lobbyists we should be covering but who are now funding our business in return for access to the newsroom and the administration. There's literally no way to look at it that doesn't leave us in a terribly unethical position.

And I don't imagine there is anyone in the newsroom who disagrees with that. Reporters are pretty religious about this stuff. The story seems to be that someone on the business side got ahead of themselves and the idea was shot down by Marcus this morning. I'm glad of that.

I also want to note that there's a variant of that idea that's very common in Washington: The National Journal frequently holds panel discussions where newsmakers speak with reporters in front of an audience and industry players -- pharmaceutical companies, say -- sponsor the event and get their names on the podium. That's a lot less problematic than literally selling access. But it's still problematic. And it's evidence of how weird things are getting as the old business models break down.

[...]

Washington DC: The flier about paying to attend a "Salon" at Katherine Weymouth's house apparently appalled the Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli. That said, it appears to have been concocted not only by the "business side," but also the Publisher and CEO of the Washington Post's publisher, Katherine Weymouth. Doesn't this compromise the newspaper when it is the person at the top who is soliciting influence?

Ezra Klein: I really just don't know enough about Weymouth's involvement to comment. It may be that her house is frequently used for salons and she didn't know this one was different. I honestly have no idea. I can only speak as part of the newsroom, and the newsroom shot our involvement down pretty quickly.

__________

Ezra's blog:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/should_newspapers_be_funded_by.html

[...] It's not just the half-baked salon idea that proved such an embarrassment this morning. The New Republic has "advertorials" in which, say, Saudi Arabia will pay money for articles on current events. The sections are labeled as advertisements but they are designed to mimic the magazine's core product. In recent years, they've gotten even closer to the basic brand and frequently feature discussions including New Republic writers who usually appear elsewhere in the magazine. For a short time, the magazine also had the energy company BP sponsor its environmental blog.

The National Journal frequently holds discussions that bring together the newspaper's core talent with major newsmakers. Its forum on health-care reform, for instance, paired Ron Brownstein with, among others, Andy Stern and Sen. Bill Bennett. The event was sponsored by Regency Blue Cross Blue Shield, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and the American Heart Association.

The Politico, meanwhile, has begun the Politico Pulse, a daily round-up of health-care news that is sponsored by health advocacy organizations. The American Prospect runs special sections on policy issues that are edited in-house but funded by outside foundations. The Atlantic Media organization frequently holds corporate-sponsored events -- like the ideas festivals -- where its talent performs directly.

All of these efforts are, in their various fashions, somewhat like advertising. But they are all much closer to the actual writing shop than traditional advertising. When you're on a stage talking health insurance and your company is cashing a check for the event from a health insurer, you know perfectly well that you're not supposed to muck up this business model for your employer. When Saudi Arabia is funding your advertising insert, the point of the exercise isn't to say mean things about Saudi Arabia.

And even all this isn't keeping the various media organizations financially afloat. The more desperate their need for money, the more pressure they'll be under to sell access to their most valued assets. The salon-scheme was a very bad idea for this newspaper, but it wasn't a crazy strategy if you don't think of newspapers as occupying a special role in American life. In fact, the worst thing about the proposal was how perfectly rational it was. [...]

[...] But there is no perfect model. There are only bad models. And the pressures of the advertising model are getting rapidly worse: News-gathering institutions are closing, sensationalizing, selling off their news-gathering capabilities or losing their souls. [...]

Update: Hoo boy. I had forgotten about [...]

- - Ezra Klein | July 2, 2009; 3:05 PM ET

__________