"an ethical lapse of monumental proportions."  That is how the Washington Post's own Ombudsman describes WaPo's salongate -- and, yes, the suffix is used intentionally, since the term was first used to describe the Washington Post's rabid efforts to unseat Richard Nixon.In case you were distracted by coverage of the King of Pop, Michael Jackson, or the king of media pop, Barack Obama, WaPo was caught with its hands in the cookie jar when Politico revealed that the Post was attempting to sell access to Obama administration officials, and its own executives and reporters, for up to $250,000 for a series of 'off the record' salons.In a Sunday column, Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander writes that arguments by WaPo Publisher Katharine Weymouth and Executive Editor Marcu Brauchli that they should have realized earlier that WaPo was prostituting itself, and its reporters, are seriously flawed:"...internal e-mails and interviews show questions about ethics were...(Read Full Post)