"an ethical lapse of monumental proportions." 

"...internal e-mails and interviews show questions about ethics were raised with both of them months ago. They also show that blame runs deeper. Beneath Brauchli and Weymouth, three of the most senior newsroom managers received an e-mail with details of the plan.

"Lower down, others inside and outside the newsroom were aware that sponsored events would involve news personnel in off-the-record settings, although they lacked details... The damage was predictable and extensive, with charges of hypocrisy against a newspaper that owes much of its fame to exposing influence peddlers and Washington's pay-to-play culture. The Post's reputation now carries a lasting stain."

"The Post has internal 'Standards and Ethics' guidelines that stress the importance of newsroom neutrality. The first line says: 'This newspaper is pledged to avoid conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest, wherever and whenever possible.' Later, it states the newspaper 'is committed to disclosing to its readers the sources of the information in its stories to the maximum possible extent'."

"In essence, Alexander's piece reveals that, at WaPo at least, 'When the publisher and the editor both appear to have signed off on an idea, I think it is perhaps true that a certain complacency sets in,' according to Brauchli.

"By having outside underwriters, The Post was effectively charging for access to its newsroom personnel. Reporters or editors could easily be perceived as being in the debt of the sponsors. And by promising participants that their conversations would be private, those attending would be assured a measure of confidentiality that the news department typically opposes."

"Obviously, it didn't raise red flags for me or we wouldn't have gotten this far," Weymouth said.

"The 'salon dinner' concept was a throwback to when Katharine Graham, as publisher, hosted private dinner parties for power brokers."