What are they thinking at the Washington Post? Part II

Just when you thought it was safe to read the Washington Post again, there's been another example of editors falling asleep at the ethical switch.

This time, the story in question is a Dec. 31 report published in the Post, but written by The Fiscal Times, a new internet financial news start-up based in Washington D.C. The article was the first in what The Fiscal Times calls a "partnership" between itself an the Post.

According to the New York Times, the story reported support for "a proposed deficit reduction commission" but contained one glaring omission:

The primary expert quoted in the article is from the Concord Coalition, whose mission is also balanced budgets and limits on safety-net spending. But the article did not mention Mr. (Peter G.) Peterson, his backing of The Fiscal Times, that he was a co-founder of the Concord Coalition or that his foundation was a major underwriter of the coalition.

According to the Times, Peterson is a conservative billionaire investment banker who advocates deficit reduction and restrictions on entitlement programs. He is also the financial backer of The Fiscal Times and his son Michael is a top executive in the company.

The Post later ran a correction to the story, which said editors should have disclosed Peterson's connection to The Fiscal Times and the Concord Coalition.

Oh, and in case you missed my retweet of Dan Kennedy earlier in the week, this video appears to show that the Post didn't learn much from this.