I’ve been trying to figure out what to make of the Washington Post brouhaha today. Politico broke the story that the Post planned to sell access to lawmakers, Obama officials and newsroom staff through small salons at publisher Katharine Weymouth’s house. Companies and lobbyists could buy slots at these salons for $25,000 a seat or $250,000 to sponsor a series.

It is no secret that all media outlets are struggling to find new ways to raise revenue. Holding conferences seems to be the hip one at the moment; NewWest.net, an online-only paper covering the West, is actually breaking even largely because of its conference business. Dow Jones and Fortune hold business conferences all the time. Publications use their influence and relationships to get big names in government and industry to show up, often use their own columnists, reporters and editors as speakers, and charge big bucks for the rest of humanity to attend.

I believe that it’s because this practice is so widespread that the initial Post reaction was more to the language of the marketing flier, which implied that your $25-$250k was purely about buying access, than the actual idea of what was going on.  “Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table,” the circular promised. “Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No.” And most damning: “An evening with the right people can alter the debate.”

The language is crude and makes any journalist cringe. But of course, all these conferences and sponsored events are to some degree about access and altering the debate. A lot more of this goes on in journalism than journalists care to admit. You expect it in women’s magazines, where all the Q&As this month ask “How can I grow longer eye lashes?” Well, one idea is to use Latisse, the new drug approved for this which … conveniently… is advertised in all these magazines. More serious magazines and newspapers try to maintain more of a wall between ads and content. But getting to meet editors and reporters and industry leaders is certainly a reason anyone would attend a publication-sponsored conference. These people can give you publicity or access, and this is worth money. And so you pay for it. Why pretend this is anything else?

The question is more whether journalists should be in the business of sposoring opportunities to interact with their sources, or taking money for access. I guess you can’t blame people for trying, as no one seems to want to pay for content these days. Bloggers accept freebies, magazines run Q&As about their advertisers, and Weymouth holds salons that one imagines Katharine Graham at least didn’t so obviously charge for. People hope they can cash in a little bit of their reputation for currency without losing all of it.