BREAKING: NYT Accuses Washington Post Editor Marcus Brauchli Of Lying To NYT Reporter About "Off The Record" Dinners.

The NYT is calling Marcus Brauchli, the executive editor of the Washington Post, a liar.

The NYT has reported this morning -- in a brief, buried "postscript" in the corrections column -- that it now has evidence that Brauchli lied last July when he told the NYT that he didn't know the paper's controversial corporate-sponsored dinner parties would be off-the-record.

The NYT doesn't state flatly that Brauchli lied. But the juxtaposition of the two Brauchli statements in the postscript make clear the NYT's position that he misrepresented the truth in interviews with the NYT.

[UPDATE: In an email to The NYTPicker, a NYT spokeswoman stands by the postscript. "The note speaks for itself," wrote Diane McNulty, the spokeswoman. "Information came to our attention after the Sept. 12 article and we decided that this note was warranted." McNulty did not elaborate.]

In a July 3 page-one story, Richard Perez-Pena reported that the Post had abandoned plans to hold high-priced dinners that would bring together Washington lobbyists and Washington Post reporters and editors. The news created a media firestorm around the idea that the Post would sell access to its staff to business interests, and led to the resignation of the Post's marketing executive, Charles Pelton.

At the time, Brauchli told Perez-Pena that he'd been explicit with the paper's marketing department about the paper's right to use information gathered at the dinners -- a distinction that enabled the editor to maintain a discreet distance from the scandal. The July 3 NYT story reported:

Mr. Brauchli said that in talking to The Post’s marketing arm, “we have always been explicit that there are certain parameters that are elemental for newsroom participation” in special events. Among those, he said, “we do not limit our questions, and we reserve the right to allow any ideas that emerge in an event to shape or inform our coverage.”

Brauchli extended that claim to a flat denial of knowledge that the dinners would be off the record, in a NYT story in September reporting the resignation of Pelton:

Marcus Brauchli, executive editor of The Post, and Ms. Weymouth said they should have recognized the ethical issues created by the plan and ended it earlier. But they said they had not known all the details of how the dinners were being promoted — for instance, Mr. Brauchli said he had not understood that they would be off the record — and that those details significantly compounded the ethical problems.

But in this morning's "Postscript," the NYT reports that Pelton's lawyer has provided them a letter from Brauchli to Pelton that proves otherwise:

However, in a subsequent letter to Mr. Pelton — which was sent to The Times by Mr. Pelton’s lawyer — Mr. Brauchli now says that he did indeed know that the dinners were being promoted as “off the record,” and that he and Mr. Pelton had discussed that issue.

The "Postscript" doesn't quote from the letter. However, by placing in its corrections column, the NYT is making the bold statement that the two previous statements by Brauchli to the NYT were false.

This represents a new development in the story. Andrew Alexander, the Washington Post's ombudsman, reported in July that several mid-level managers knew of the ethical problems created by the dinners, but continued to absolve Brauchli of direct responsibility, repeating Brauchli's claim that he was "stunned" by the news. Here's what Alexander reported on July 12:

Brauchli conferred with Pelton about the salon dinners. At one point they showed up at the newsroom desk of reporter Ceci Connolly, who covers health care, which was to be the discussion topic of the July 21 dinner. Subsequently, she said, "Charles asked me for some contact phone numbers and e-mails, which I provided."

Brauchli said that Pelton believed that "in order for these things to succeed, they need to be on background. And I think the language went from 'background' to 'off the record' which, from my perspective now, [is] even worse."

Alexander absolved Brauchli -- and publisher Katharine Weymouth -- of any direct knowledge of the parameters until the story broke on the Politico website on July 2. He reported that Brauchli forwarded Pelton's May email outlining the plans to top newsroom managers, but does not suggest that Brauchli read it himself, or knew in advance that the dinners wouldn't meet the Post's ethical standards.

Why did the NYT not report this news in the paper itself, where the rules of journalism might have applied -- and where a reporter might have called Brauchli for his comment on the discrepancy? Was it hoping to bury the news on a Saturday, when the media hordes might not descend on Brauchli over this apparent contradiction? The NYT's brief statement doesn't address those specific questions.

UPDATE: In Brauchli's letter to former Post marketing executive Charles Pelton -- the basis for this morning's NYT "postscript" accusing Brauchli of lying to the paper -- Brauchli claims that the NYT reporter "apparently misunderstood me."

In acknowledging for the first time that he knew the controversial dinners were off the record, Brauchli said he explained to NYT reporter Richard Perez-Pena that "my original intention had been that the dinners would take place under Chatham House Rule -- meaning that the conversations could be used for further reporting without identifying the speaker or the speaker's affiliation."

Brauchli stated definitively to Pelton in the letter that "I knew that the salon dinners were being promoted as 'off the record.'"

But when Perez-Pena's stories appeared and suggested otherwise, Brauchli made no attempt to clarify or correct the NYT articles. "I should have said something at that point but did not," Brauchli wrote in the letter to Pelton, dated September 25, and published this morning by Politico.

However, in McNulty's statement to The NYTPicker today that "the note speaks for itself," the NYT is clearly stating that it doesn't believe Brauchli's version of events. The postscript made no mention of Brauchli's claim in the letter that he had been misunderstood.

UPDATE: "The letter speaks for itself," says Kris Coratti, communications director of the Washington Post, in an email to The NYTPicker responding to our requests for comment from Brauchli. It's probably not a coincidence that Coratti's comment is virtually identical to McNulty's statement on behalf of the NYT earlier today.

Here's The Google Plan: To Give Users Links To NYT/WashPost Articles Without Asking, And Sell Ads Against Them.

Wondering what Google has been discussing with the NYT and the Washington Post? Here's the answer.

The world's most powerful search engine will -- within the next six months -- give Googlers links to NYT and WP news stories based on an algorithm that uses searches, purchases and other components to calculate what users want.

Of course, Google plans to sell "premium" advertising against this "premium" content. Will it share the revenues with the news providers? No. Instead, it calculates that the NYT and WP will make enough money from adverting rates that reflect the increased hits its plan will generate.

The specifics of Google's plans were revealed nearly a month ago on a website run by former NYT entertainment reporter Sharon Waxman, called The Wrap -- itself a website supported by investment and advertising, and devoted to coverage of Hollywood.

In an interview with Google chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt -- conducted in the living room of Arianna Huffington's Brentwood home, at a book party -- Waxman extracted the news of Google's plans:

I asked [Schmidt] if the rumors I’d heard, that Google was changing its mind about getting involved with creating original content, were true.

No, he responded, quite convincingly, they’re not. Google is not a content company, and is not going in that direction, he explained.

But Google does have plans for a solution. In about six months, the company will roll out a system that will bring high-quality news content to users without them actively looking for it.

Under this latest iteration of advanced search, users will be automatically served the kind of news that interests them just by calling up Google’s page. The latest algorithms apply ever more sophisticated filtering - based on search words, user choices, purchases, a whole host of cues - to determine what the reader is looking for without knowing they’re looking for it.

And on this basis, Google believes it will be able to sell premium ads against premium content.

The first two news organizations to get this treatment, Schmidt said, will be the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Does the New York Times make more money from this arrangement, I asked? No, Schmidt confirmed, it won’t. But by targeting the stories that readers will want to read, it will get more hits out of the stories it has, which will drive its traffic and ultimately support higher advertising rates beside the stories.

Sorry, Brian Stelter and Howard Kurtz. Looks like Sharon Waxman and The Wrap got there first.

If the Waxman-reported Google plan goes forward -- and why wouldn't it? -- it's hard to know how much money it will mean to the NYT's bottom line. But right now, the big winner would appear to be Google, with the newspapers desperately trying to wrangle as much money as it can from search engine's inevitable use of its content as an advertising lure.

Woodward Forgets To Move Flower Pot On Balcony; Deep Throat Leaks Last Scoop To NYT.

In the end, Bob Woodward couldn't count on the greatest source of his career to hand him his final scoop.

At 12:10 this morning, the Times broke exclusively the death of W. Mark Felt, the Justice Department official most famous for furtive garage meetings with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward during the Watergate scandal. Dubbed "Deep Throat" by editor Ben Bradlee, Felt became one of Woodward's best sources on the scandal that brought the Nixon Presidency to an end.

Felt was also pivotal to the career of screenwriter William Goldman, who attributed to Deep Throat the most famous one-line piece of advice in journalism via the movie All The President's Men: "Follow the money."

So, where was Washington Post reporter Woodward late last night? Probably asleep in his sprawling Georgetown townhouse in his canopy bed with 600-thread count Egyptian cotton sheets, paid for by Felt's assistance on the story that made his career.

Woodward's byline on a Felt obit didn't appear on the Post website until 1:02 a.m. this morning, nearly an hour after Times reporter Tim Weiner's exclusive 1,700-word Felt obituary showed up.

Jackie Calmes 1, Rest of News Media, 0

In the battle for supremacy among White House correspondents in the Barack Obama administration, Times correspondent Jackie Calmes launched a brilliant opening salvo with her lead story in this morning's paper.

Calmes's 1,411-word report on the president-elect's visit to the White House yesterday offered news lacking in softball coverage elsewhere -- focusing in depth on the growing conflict over how to handle the auto industry crisis.

The Times broke the story on its website of a proposed deal between Obama and Bush that would have involved an epic political horse trade: Bush's support for Obama's stimulus package if Congressional Democrats dropped their opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia. That scoop presumably got handed to the Times (and the Washington Post) by incoming press secretary Robert Gibbs and future chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, also known as "people familiar with the discussion."

But Calmes took her reporting several steps further than the Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal (the paper Calmes left last August to join the Times's Washington bureau), or Chicago Tribune, which devoted part of its story to speculation about Obama's Senate seat. While other papers depended on Senator Carl Levin's predictable quotes and/or speculated on the possibility of a lame duck session, Calmes made clear that no compromise was reached.

"Democrats also indicate that neither Mr. Obama, nor Congressional leaders are inclined to concede the Colombis pack to Mr. Bush, and may decide to wait until Mr. Obama assumes power on Jan. 20," Calmes wrote in the fifth paragraph.

Her story went on to explain, in considerable detail, how the auto industry crisis has created a crucial distinction between the two Administrations, and laid out (in her words) the lines both men have drawn. She examined Obama's campaign promises on the topic, reported on the varying positions of interest groups, and even noted that Obama has involved Al Gore in the conversations.

The Post's story on the Bush-Obama meeting, by Lori Montgomery and Michael D. Shear, had the scoop but none of the perspective, and left readers wondering what exactly had taken place in the Oval Office.

The Los Angeles Times pushed its Bush-Obama story to page A12 and came in a distant third place in reporting and insight. The Wall Street Journal combined its automakers coverage with its human-interest account of the Obama White House visit, and informed us in paragraph 3 that Obama arrived there in a limousine instead of his usual SUV.