Sometimes the vigilance finds worthy targets, as it did last week with The Washington Post's plan to sell influential insiders access to its journalists, to lawmakers and to Obama administration policy czars. I just wish newspapers were as creative in finding legitimate ways to market themselves (by, for example, selling increased access to their star columnists and experts) as they are in sticking to the tried and true, which won't pay the bills the way it once did. Why aren't more newspapers holding food festivals or sponsoring seminars to cook or sample cuisines with their food and restaurant writers? Couldn't critics lead discussion groups at music, theater and film festivals? I'm just musing here, but that's something that's been in far too short supply as the newspaper industry has been racked by anxiety about what's been lost -- a good chunk of its print audience and advertising revenue. 'Newspapers are and should continue to be recognized as very authoritative about what is going on in their communities,' said Alan Mutter, the San Francisco-based analyst who writes the Reflections of a Newsosaur blog. 'Some publications are struggling to maintain their relevance and these special events with readers are a very legitimate function for them to fulfill.' In journalism there's always a balancing of competing priorities. In this arena, trouble arises when outlets dirty up their established brand and priorities as they grope for a new incarnation. That's essentially what happened last week when the Web site Politico uncovered a flier trying to lure lobbyists and others to pay to meet in intimate 'salons' with The Washington Post's publisher, editor and reporters, along with members of Congress and the Obama administration. The paper planned to charge anywhere from $25,000 to $250,000 (for multiple sessions) for this privileged access to meetings that would be off the record and outside public view. After a furor and considerable push-back from her newsroom, Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth canceled the sessions. The problem, neatly capsulized by Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, was that the proposed sessions undermined an unwritten tenet that journalists should give 'their highest allegiance to their audience.' 'These salons put the paper in the role of taking money to help lobbyists gain special access to government officials,' added Rosenstiel, 'with no apparent benefit to public discussion.' The Post controversy had begun to die down this week, until a story on the Talking Points Memo website suggested a much more insidious insider-ism throughout Washington media outlets. TPM focused on the Atlantic magazine's long-running dinners, sponsored by corporations and providing exclusive, off-the-record access for Washington insiders. One Atlantic scribe whom I talked to wasn't quite buying Publisher David Bradley's rebuttal that the magazine's off-the-record rules had prompted 'a great deal of constructive conversation.' My source (who didn't want to be named because he didn't want to run afoul of his bosses) doubted the journalistic benefit of the sessions, saying: 'What insight do you ever get at these things, unless it's that someone has a bad temper or drinks too much?' At least the Atlantic invites a broad spectrum of movers and shakers to its dinners. If it would provide public transcripts (perhaps on a delayed basis, so participants got some added benefit for their payments) it would reassure its regular readers that their interests remained front and center. Journalists who let these ethical standards lapse are playing with their future viability. 'News organizations need to innovate new revenue streams,' Rosenstiel said. 'But they need to do it in a way that does not damage their credibility, or those revenue benefits will be short-lived indeed.' Some publications moved years ago to establish more intimate, and lucrative, ties to their readers. The Nation magazine will embark this December on its 12th annual 'seminar cruise' -- a trip around the Caribbean with some of the journal's writers, along with headliners including Howard Dean and E.L. Doctorow. Total take for the cruise? Roughly $250,000. Nothing to sneeze at as the liberal citadel (like other political magazines) struggles to remain in print. General interest newspapers could go cruising only if they shipped out with a more ideologically balanced, nonpartisan crew. But they might with a dozen other subject themes (think features and entertainment) with few or no ethical hang-ups. Maybe a little cooking seminar down in the galley, or an art history workshop in the dining room. 