Way back in 1995, the Washington Post's Ben Bradlee explained why he was uncomfortable with journalists getting big bucks on the lecture circuit: "I w
Way back in 1995, the Washington Post's Ben Bradlee explained why he was uncomfortable with journalists getting big bucks on the lecture circuit: "I wish it would go away. I don’t like it. I think it’s corrupting. If the Insurance Institute of America, if there is such a thing, pays you $10,000 to make a speech, don’t tell me you haven’t been corrupted. You can say you haven’t and you can say you will attack insurance issues in the same way, but you won’t. You can’t."
It's a shame David Broder wasn't paying attention.
[I]t’s surprising to see that Broder, who recently took a buyout but will continue to write his Post column, appears to be a regular presence these days on the business-lecture circuit and has even spoken to major health-care groups. [...]
Perhaps the groups to whom Broder spoke paid only for his expenses. Even if that’s true, he still appears to have—at minimum—been on the receiving end of some sweet junkets. And shouldn’t Broder disclose to the Post’s readers and the general public his moonlighting activities, especially when he writes about topics that overlap with his speaking gigs?