ReportWire

Tag: The Washington Post

  • Tom Sietsema’s impact on the DC dining culture, according to the chefs, owners he reviewed – WTOP News

    For 26 years now, Tom Sietsema has been a faceless name that struck a chord throughout the entirety of the…

    This page contains a video which is being blocked by your ad blocker.
    In order to view the video you must disable your ad blocker.

    Washington Post food critic Tom Sietsema on his career and what’s next

    For 26 years now, Tom Sietsema has been a faceless name that struck a chord throughout the entirety of the D.C. area’s food and beverage industry. While most didn’t know what the food critic for The Washington Post looked like, they certainly knew what he craved and critiqued. And whether his words were positive or not, they resonated within the region.

    But this Tuesday, Sietsema announced that he is dropping his anonymity and stepping down. While he said in his announcement that he is not retiring — “I’ve got plans to cook more, travel more and stay connected with fellow food enthusiasts” — the future still remains unclear.

    Several chefs and restaurateurs spoke to WTOP about how Sietsema’s reviews impacted them and what they would say if they got the chance to meet him. Many said it was Sietsema’s reviews that helped them get through the pandemic or propelled them to the executive chef positions they hold now.

    Matt Conroy, executive chef at Lutèce, Pascual and Maison Bar À Vins, said that Sietsema’s review of Lutèce in particular “really catapulted the restaurant” during the pandemic when it opened.

    “His reviews hold a lot of weight,” Conroy said. “I think people pay attention to him … you’re not going to trick him. … He knows what’s good.”

    Kevin Tien, chef and owner of Moon Rabbit, said Sietsema’s review of his former restaurant, Himitsu, directly impacted the increase of traffic, interest in specific dishes and the diversity of diners in the restaurant.

    In 2016, when Tien was 29 years old, he opened Himitsu in D.C.’s Petworth neighborhood.

    “I had no business opening a restaurant, but getting a review from him really changed the trajectory of my career, and honestly, I’m forever grateful,” he said.

    Daisuke Utagawa, a partner of Daikaya Group, which includes Tonari, Bantam King and Daikaya, credits Sietsema for elevating the dining scene of the D.C. area.

    “He was a very integral part of Washington becoming a food town,” Utagawa said, further describing Sietsema as a “champion of the industry.”

    For Jeffrey Bank, owner and CEO of the Alicart Restaurant Group, he said Sietsema was “very fair” in his 2010 review of Carmine’s.

    In the review at the time, Sietsema wrote, “I am prepared not to like my feast … But I end up eating my words.”

    Bank said Sietsema understood the intention of the restaurant and was “spot on” in his assessment.

    “He really always got the food. He got service, but he also got I feel what the restaurant was trying to be and what it was going for,” Bank said.

    Many of the chefs said if there was one thing they could tell Sietsema, it would be: “Thank you.”

    Bryan Voltaggio, chef and owner of Wye Oak Tavern, said, “I would just say thank you. … He has helped put D.C. and the entire DMV on the map.”

    “You’ve given opportunity to many chefs who would never otherwise have an opportunity to share their stories and their food and their culture. And you’ve helped build a path for us to be more welcomed in a dining environment that may not be so welcoming sometimes to small, young chefs or BIPOC chefs,” Tien said of Sietsema.

    With Sietsema stepping down as food critic for The Washington Post, what does that mean for food criticism in the nation’s capital? The restaurant owners and chefs that WTOP spoke to said they in no way see food criticism as a dying art as a whole. It is certainly changing, though.

    According to Conroy, “print is not what it was,” and “people get their news different ways now.” He said a review from trusted sources like Sietsema can change a business overnight.

    “I think critics give us an honest review of a restaurant, and not ‘Everything’s the best, and you have to go there this weekend,’” Tien said.

    Some aren’t so keen about food critics.

    Stephen Starr, president and founder of STARR Restaurants, said, “I wish there were no food critics. … We would like the people to decide. It scares me … when a food critic comes in.”

    Even so, Starr said he respects Sietsema and his work and how “fair” he always has been, saying he’s “sort of like The Godfather” or “the Yoda of the food and culinary scene.”

    “I believe he is an iconic reviewer in the food industry,” Starr said. “I believe what is most admirable, other than his writing style, is the fact that I think he goes into a restaurant with reverence for what restaurants are.”

    Michelle Goldchain

    Source link

  • Tom Sietsema’s impact on the DC dining culture, according to the chefs, owners he reviewed – WTOP News

    For 26 years now, Tom Sietsema has been a faceless name that struck a chord throughout the entirety of the D.C. area’s food and beverage industry.

    This page contains a video which is being blocked by your ad blocker.
    In order to view the video you must disable your ad blocker.

    Washington Post food critic Tom Sietsema on his career and what’s next

    For 26 years now, Tom Sietsema has been a faceless name that struck a chord throughout the entirety of the D.C. area’s food and beverage industry. While most didn’t know what the food critic for The Washington Post looked like, they certainly knew what he craved and critiqued. And whether his words were positive or not, they resonated within the region.

    But this Tuesday, Sietsema announced that he is dropping his anonymity and stepping down. While he said in his announcement that he is not retiring — “I’ve got plans to cook more, travel more and stay connected with fellow food enthusiasts” — the future still remains unclear.

    Several chefs and restaurateurs spoke to WTOP about how Sietsema’s reviews impacted them and what they would say if they got the chance to meet him. Many said it was Sietsema’s reviews that helped them get through the pandemic or propelled them to the executive chef positions they hold now.

    Matt Conroy, executive chef at Lutèce, Pascual and Maison Bar À Vins, said that Sietsema’s review of Lutèce in particular “really catapulted the restaurant” during the pandemic when it opened.

    “His reviews hold a lot of weight,” Conroy said. “I think people pay attention to him … you’re not going to trick him. … He knows what’s good.”

    Kevin Tien, chef and owner of Moon Rabbit, said Sietsema’s review of his former restaurant, Himitsu, directly impacted the increase of traffic, interest in specific dishes and the diversity of diners in the restaurant.

    In 2016, when Tien was 29 years old, he opened Himitsu in D.C.’s Petworth neighborhood.

    “I had no business opening a restaurant, but getting a review from him really changed the trajectory of my career, and honestly, I’m forever grateful,” he said.

    Daisuke Utagawa, a partner of Daikaya Group, which includes Tonari, Bantam King and Daikaya, credits Sietsema for elevating the dining scene of the D.C. area.

    “He was a very integral part of Washington becoming a food town,” Utagawa said, further describing Sietsema as a “champion of the industry.”

    For Jeffrey Bank, owner and CEO of the Alicart Restaurant Group, he said Sietsema was “very fair” in his 2010 review of Carmine’s.

    In the review at the time, Sietsema wrote, “I am prepared not to like my feast … But I end up eating my words.”

    Bank said Sietsema understood the intention of the restaurant and was “spot on” in his assessment.

    “He really always got the food. He got service, but he also got I feel what the restaurant was trying to be and what it was going for,” Bank said.

    Many of the chefs said if there was one thing they could tell Sietsema, it would be: “Thank you.”

    Bryan Voltaggio, chef and owner of Wye Oak Tavern, said, “I would just say thank you. … He has helped put D.C. and the entire DMV on the map.”

    “You’ve given opportunity to many chefs who would never otherwise have an opportunity to share their stories and their food and their culture. And you’ve helped build a path for us to be more welcomed in a dining environment that may not be so welcoming sometimes to small, young chefs or BIPOC chefs,” Tien said of Sietsema.

    With Sietsema stepping down as food critic for The Washington Post, what does that mean for food criticism in the nation’s capital? The restaurant owners and chefs that WTOP spoke to said they in no way see food criticism as a dying art as a whole. It is certainly changing, though.

    According to Conroy, “print is not what it was,” and “people get their news different ways now.” He said a review from trusted sources like Sietsema can change a business overnight.

    “I think critics give us an honest review of a restaurant, and not ‘Everything’s the best, and you have to go there this weekend,’” Tien said.

    Some aren’t so keen about food critics.

    Stephen Starr, president and founder of STARR Restaurants, said, “I wish there were no food critics. … We would like the people to decide. It scares me … when a food critic comes in.”

    Even so, Starr said he respects Sietsema and his work and how “fair” he always has been, saying he’s “sort of like The Godfather” or “the Yoda of the food and culinary scene.”

    “I believe he is an iconic reviewer in the food industry,” Starr said. “I believe what is most admirable, other than his writing style, is the fact that I think he goes into a restaurant with reverence for what restaurants are.”

    Michelle Goldchain

    Source link

  • Lindsey Halligan is already making mistakes prosecuting James Comey

    Lindsey Halligan’s debut as a federal prosecutor has drawn close scrutiny after a series of early errors surfaced in court filings related to the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey.

    Halligan, previously known as a private attorney and one of Donald Trump’s personal lawyers, assumed the role of U.S. Attorney only recently and has never prosecuted a case before.

    Newsweek contacted the DOJ for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Monday.

    Why It Matters

    The missteps go beyond clerical slips: they test the strength and fairness of the government’s case and the credibility of the Justice Department itself.

    Procedural errors can delay or weaken a prosecution, giving defense lawyers leverage to argue overreach. They also risk reinforcing criticism that this politically charged indictment—announced soon after Donald Trump publicly urged charges against political opponents—is more about pressure than law.

    How Halligan recovers from these mistakes could shape not just the outcome of the Comey case but public trust in the department’s independence and competence.

    What To Know

    Problems in Halligan’s initial filings, including duplicate case numbers and clerical errors such as misspellings in official documents have been flagged.

    A widely shared social media post on X noted she “doesn’t know the difference between a bedrock principle and a bedrock ‘principal’.”

    The difference between the two is about word meaning—and in legal writing, it’s important:

    • Principle (with “le” at the end) means a fundamental truth, rule, or concept.
      Example: “Due process is a bedrock principle of American law.”
    • Principal (with “al” at the end) means a leader or main person (like a school principal) or can mean “main” or “primary.”
      Example: “The principal reason for dismissal was lack of evidence.”

    So “bedrock principle” is correct when you mean a foundational idea or standard. “Bedrock principal” would incorrectly suggest a foundational person or primary figure, which doesn’t make sense in legal filings.

    While U.S. Magistrate Judge Vaala was also described on X September 28, 2025, as “trying to untangle Lindsey Halligan’s first adventure in indicting someone.”

    Some social media commentary veered into personal territory—mentioning Halligan’s past role as Donald Trump’s lawyer—but the concerns raised publicly are framed around prosecutorial competence and case management.

    Questions about Halligan’s preparedness intensified when The Washington Post reported she “presented the Comey indictment all by herself to the grand jury,” citing people familiar with the matter.

    Legal Debate Over The Charges

    The case accuses Comey of misleading investigators about authorizing leaks during his tenure at the FBI.

    The prosecution’s path will not be straightforward. To convict under 18 U.S.C. §1001(a) (2), prosecutors must prove the statements were false, that Comey knew they were false when made, and that they were material to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s inquiry. Proving intent—showing deliberate deception rather than mistake or faulty memory—has historically been difficult with senior officials and complex testimony.

    And the legal theory behind the indictment is contested, including by some who have criticized Comey previously.

    Fox News legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy said on Maria Bartiromo’s Wall Street that the charges appear weak. “Well, I don’t think there’s a case,” McCarthy told Bartiromo on September 26.

    He said the indictment seems “premised on something that’s not true, which is that [Andrew] McCabe said that Comey authorized him to leak to the Wall Street Journal. … McCabe said that he directed the leak, and he told Comey about it after the fact. So, it’s true that Comey never authorized it in the sense of OK’ing it before it happened. So, I don’t see how they can make that case.”

    McCarthy also noted: “If you were talking about the information that was provided to the FISA court … that’s not what this case is about,” underscoring that the indictment focuses narrowly on a single disclosure.

    Not The First DOJ Misstep — But Unusual At This Level

    Filing mistakes are not unheard of in federal litigation, but they rarely surface repeatedly in a high-profile case led by a U.S. Attorney.

    In 2017, the Justice Department briefly misspelled then–acting Attorney General Sally Yates’s name in a filing, and in 2020 a DOJ motion in the Michael Flynn case cited the wrong date for a judge’s order; both were corrected quickly and drew little attention.

    Halligan, 36, the newly installed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia—one of the most consequential federal prosecutorial offices in the country—spent most of her career in Florida insurance litigation before joining Trump’s legal team during the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation.

    Court records indicate she has participated in only three federal cases prior to this appointment.

    What stands out with Halligan’s early work is the combination of multiple procedural errors—including duplicate case numbers and the “principle/principal” slip — and her lack of prior prosecutorial experience while serving in one of the department’s most senior roles.

    What People Are Saying

    Carol Leonnig and Vaughn Hillyard added September 26, on X that “Lindsey Halligan, the newly installed U.S. Attorney who has never prosecuted a case, presented the Comey indictment all by herself to the grand jury … She may have a problem finding a prosecutor in office to work on the case.”

    What Happens Next

    The case now moves into pretrial motions, where Comey’s lawyers will challenge the charges and cite early filing errors. Halligan can correct those mistakes and may add experienced prosecutors, though support is uncertain.

    If the case survives, discovery will test the evidence that Comey authorized leaks as political scrutiny grows. Judges often allow technical fixes, but repeated missteps could damage the prosecution’s credibility and shape views of Halligan’s leadership.

    Source link

  • EPA scientists were reportedly ordered to halt publication of research papers

    According to a report by The Washington Post, scientists with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Water were ordered by “political appointees” to stop work on studies that were headed for publication, as they’ll now be “subject to a new review process.” Staffers were reportedly given the instructions in a town hall meeting this week. The only papers exempt are those for which “scientific journals had already returned proofs — the final step in the academic publication process,” reports The Washington Post, which spoke to two agency employees. Among other things, the role of the Office of Water is to ensure the safety of drinking water.

    It’s the latest in a string of changes at the EPA under the Trump administration, and raises yet more concerns for public health. In May, the agency announced plans to roll back limitations for some perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), known as “forever chemicals,” that had been set by the Biden administration, saying it would keep only the limits for the two most common, PFOA and PFOS. In July, the EPA laid off thousands of employees and announced it would shut down its scientific research office. The same month, the EPA proposed rescinding certain greenhouse gas emissions standards, and just last week announced a plan to do away with the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program that requires some of the nation’s biggest polluters to report their emissions.

    Following the latest orders, staffers with the Office of Water who spoke to The Washington Post said they were not given a reason to provide scientific journals as to why the papers have been halted, and no details on the new review process have been shared. One employee told the publication, “This represents millions of dollars of research, potentially, that’s now being stopped.”

    Cheyenne MacDonald

    Source link

  • Meta reportedly suppressed research about how dangerous its VR headsets are for kids

    Meta allegedly suppressed research that suggested kids were exposed to certain dangers when using its VR headsets, . Current and former employees have presented documents to Congress that describe incidents in which children were groomed by adult predators in VR, but allege that internal reports were edited to omit the worst of these offenses. Meta has denied these allegations.

    Two of these researchers claim they met with a German family in which a child younger than ten had been approached by strangers online while using a Meta VR headset. Some of these strangers allegedly sexually propositioned the child. When the employees issued the harrowing report, their boss allegedly ordered that the aforementioned claims be deleted. When the internal report was eventually published, it spoke of some parents being scared of this type of thing but didn’t mention the above incident.

    The trove of documents presented to Congress reportedly indicate guidance from Meta’s legal team instructing researchers to avoid collecting data about children using VR devices. The memo suggests this is “due to regulatory concerns,” likely referring to fallout from .

    The documents also include warnings from employees that children younger than 13 were bypassing age restrictions to use VR headsets. However, Meta has since lowered the minimum age .

    Meta spokeswoman Dani Lever told The Post that the documents were “stitched together to fit a predetermined and false narrative” and that the company doesn’t prohibit research about children under 13. “We stand by our research team’s excellent work and are dismayed by these mischaracterizations of the team’s efforts,” she said.

    The company didn’t confirm or deny the events regarding the family in Germany, but said that if the anecdote was deleted from the official record it was to ensure compliance with a US federal law governing the handling of children’s personal data or the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) from the EU.

    That one prohibits companies from collecting personal information without consent, but the researchers maintain they received consent from the child’s mother. They also say they received a signed contract from the mother at the start of the interview.

    A Senate Judiciary subcommittee is scheduled to discuss these allegations at a hearing later in the week. This particular subcommittee examines laws and regulations regarding online safety.

    It was Meta is opening up its Horizon Worlds VR hangout app to preteens, so long as they get parental approval. This led the Senate Judiciary Committee to pen a letter demanding information as to the presence of minors on the app and the company’s alleged failures to .

    Lawrence Bonk

    Source link

  • Jeff Bezos doubles down on unprecedented block of a presidential endorsement from ‘The Washington Post’ but admits ‘I am not an ideal owner’

    Jeff Bezos doubles down on unprecedented block of a presidential endorsement from ‘The Washington Post’ but admits ‘I am not an ideal owner’

    Amazon founder Jeff Bezos might not allow The Washington Post to run its traditional endorsement of a presidential candidate, but he’s willing to pen and run an op-ed justifying his move. It’s all in the name of keeping the media unbiased, Jeff Bezos insists.

    Last Friday, the Post announced it was not endorsing a candidate in the upcoming election, which has been deemed by some to be one of the closest in America’s modern history. Sources said two Post writers produced an article that endorsed Kamala Harris, but the story was killed by Bezos, the outlet’s billionaire owner. 

    Facing backlash, Bezos is standing by his words. But Bezos’ op-ed indicates this is a change of policy for future elections. On the topic of endorsements, he said “ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.” He called his decision “a meaningful step in the right direction” when it comes to regaining the trust of readers amidst disillusionment with the sector in general.

    Citing Gallup’s data regarding slipping belief in institutions including the media, Bezos wrote “our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.” Despite being the owner of the Post since 2013, Bezos made his wealth and spent most of his career in the tech sector where he founded Amazon. Amazon did not respond immediately to requests for comment.

    “It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help,” Bezos wrote. “Complaining is not a strategy.” Going on to claim that “presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election,” Bezos said all they do is “create a perception of bias.” 

    Research from professors at Brown University shows that said endorsements are actually pretty influential “in the sense that voters are more likely to support the recommended candidate after publication of the endorsement.” But influence varies based on one’s bias. 

    Even Bezos admits the timing is a little off, as the election is only two weeks away from when the decision was announced. Calling the move “inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy,” he insists there’s “no quid pro quo of any kind at work here.” That’s all despite Dave Limp, chief executive at Bezos’ Blue Origin, meeting with Republican candidate Donald Trump the day of the announcement. 

    Bezos said he didn’t know about the meeting beforehand, and implored people to trust him. Calling upon his track record at the Post, Bezos said his views are “principled.” 

    Perhaps this is not the job for a billionaire, concedes Bezos (though without any apparent desire to resign). “When it comes to the appearance of conflict, I am not an ideal owner of The Post,” he wrote, noting that officials at Amazon, Blue Origin, or other company he’s invested in are often meeting with politicians. “I once wrote that The Post is a ‘complexifier’ for me. It is, but it turns out I’m also a complexifier for The Post.” 

    The newspaper with the slogan “democracy lies in darkness,” has endorsed a candidate since 1976—the only other time the Post declined to do so was in 1988, according to NPR. The choice to stay on the sidelines was met with some swift backlash from both internal and external figures. 

    Editor-at-large Robert Kagan resigned the same day as the announcement regarding the change in endorsements, telling CNN that the policy was “obviously an effort by Jeff Bezos to curry favor with Donald Trump in the anticipation of his possible victory,” as “Trump has threatened to go after Bezos’ business.” Three out ten people on the Post’s editorial board also stepped down because of the decision, while other journalists and columnists also quit in response. 

    An op-ed signed by 21 Post columnists disavows the choice as a “terrible mistake,” adding it “represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love.”

    Bezos’ choice also caused a dent in readership: As of Monday, more than 200,000 people—representing around 8% of the outlet’s total subscriber base—canceled their subscriptions to the Post, sources told NPR.

    “It’s a colossal number,” former Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli told NPR of the dip in subscribers, adding there’s no way to know “why the decision was made.:

    A likely crucial element to America’s distrust of the media is their growing skepticism of the rich. As wealth inequality balloons, more than half of (59%) of Americans reportedly believe billionaires create a more unfair society per Harris Poll’s released survey of more than 2,100 U.S. adults.

    While respondents have some regard for billionaire’s influence over the economy, many want them out of certain spheres. One of them is the media, as 42% of Americans don’t think billionaires should be able to purchase businesses in the media sector.

    As one of the richest people in the world, Bezos’ wealth isn’t just the elephant in the room; it’s basically the whole room. “You can see my wealth and business interests as a bulwark against intimidation, or you can see them as a web of conflicting interests,” he wrote in his op-ed. It seems that some Americans see it as the latter.

    Chloe Berger

    Source link

  • Washington Post declines to endorse a presidential candidate, angering staffers and subscribers

    Washington Post declines to endorse a presidential candidate, angering staffers and subscribers

    The Washington Post’s publisher, William Lewis, on Friday said the newspaper would not endorse a presidential candidate in this year’s election or in future elections, a stance that sparked outrage from and some of its current and former employees, as well as subscribers.  

    “The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” Lewis wrote in a note published on the newspaper’s website.

    The decision follows a move by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong to block that newspaper’s endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris, which has sparked the resignation of the editorials editor, Mariel Garza, followed by the resignations of two other members of its editorial board.

    Both Soon-Shiong and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos are billionaires who made their fortunes outside the media industry. 

    Former WaPo editor objects

    Media observers decried the decisions, while some readers of the newspapers said they are canceling their subscriptions.

    “This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty,” wrote Marty Baron, the former editor of the Washington Post, who retired in 2021, on X Friday about the Washington Post’s decision. Former President Donald Trump “will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner @jeffbezos (and others). Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

    The Washington Post Guild, which represents roughly 1,000 journalists and other workers at the media company, expressed concern that corporate management had interfered with the paper’s editorial decision-making process.

    “According to our reporters and Guild members, an endorsement for Harris was already drafted, and the decision to not to publish was made by The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos,” the labor group said In a statement posted on X. “We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers. The decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it.”

    Robert Kagan, an editor at large for the Washington Post, resigned from the editorial board as result of the decision not to endorse a candidate, according to NPR’s David Folkenflik. “Kagan has been a persistent conservative critic of Trump, tying him to an autocratic tradition,” Folkenflik wrote on X. “Uniformly outraged response from staff.”

    Some readers of both the Post and the Los Angeles Times said they planned to cancel their subscriptions, with some posting images of their subscription cancellation notices. 

    “Great, another billionaire protecting his own self-interest instead of the country’s. Nice knowing you, @washingtonpost⁩. Subscription canceled,” wrote Hollywood director Paul Feig on X. 

    Zach Wahls, an Iowa state senator and a Democrat, wrote, “I am a strong believer in paying for serious, high-quality journalism, and that is exactly why I am canceling my @washingtonpost subscription over this timid, cowardly decision that could not come at a worse possible — or more revealing — time.”

    The vast majority of reader responses on social media were negative, with many saying they had canceled their subscriptions, although a few expressed support for the Washington Post. “For the first time in my adult life, I’m proud of the Washington Post,” one reader wrote.

    Lewis didn’t immediately return a request for comment, nor did Los Angeles Times executive editor Terry Tang. Washington Post Executive Matt Murray also did not respond to an email requesting comment. 

    Los Angeles Times resignations

    On Thursday, Los Angeles Times veteran journalists Robert Greene and Karin Klein announced their resignations one day after the editorial page editor Garza left in protest over Soon-Shiong’s decision not to endorse a candidate.

    Greene, a Pulitzer Prize winner for editorial writing, said in a statement shared with the Columbia Journalism Review that he was “deeply disappointed” in the decision not to endorse Harris.

    “I recognize that it is the owner’s decision to make,” he wrote. “But it hurt particularly because one of the candidates, Donald Trump, has demonstrated such hostility to principles that are central to journalism — respect for the truth and reverence for democracy.”

    Garza said the board had intended to endorse Harris and that she had drafted the outline of a proposed editorial, but that was blocked by Soon-Shiong.

    An editorial board operates separately from the newsroom, and its writers’ job is to present an issue and then take a side and lay out arguments to defend it.

    The Associated Press

    contributed to this report.

    Aimee Picchi

    Aimee Picchi is the associate managing editor for CBS MoneyWatch, where she covers business and personal finance. She previously worked at Bloomberg News and has written for national news outlets including USA Today and Consumer Reports.

    Source link

  • ‘You’re next:’ Some Trump supporters blame the media for assassination attempt

    ‘You’re next:’ Some Trump supporters blame the media for assassination attempt

    New York (CNN) — Moments after Donald Trump was rushed to safety following a failed assassination attempt at a Saturday night rally, some of his supporters turned toward the press pen with obscenities as they fingered reporters for blame.

    “This is your fault!” one attendee emphatically yelled, pointing at individual journalists as he approached the fence line separating them from attendees. “This is your fault!”

    “It is your fault!” exclaimed another.

    Axios reporter Sophia Cai, who quoted some in the crowd warning the press, “you’re next” and that their “time is coming,” even reported that a few rally goers tried to breach the barriers establishing the press pen, but that they were stopped by security personnel.

    In the immediate wake of the horrific shooting attempt on Trump’s life, which resulted in the tragic death of one rally attendee and the severe wounding of two others, the news media has quickly emerged among some Trump supporters as a body to assign blame.

    While the Trump campaign urged its staff to “condemn all forms of violence” and said it “will not tolerate dangerous rhetoric on social media,” some of the former president’s supporters in MAGA Media vehemently assailed the press for its hard-knuckled reporting on Trump, which has sounded the alarm on what four more years under the former president would look like.

    Over the course of the campaign cycle, news organizations have, among other things, reported at length on Trump’s plans to warp the federal government for his own ends, including to seek vengeance against his political opponents. That reporting is now facing scrutiny, with some Trump supporters blaming it for producing a charged atmosphere that gave way to the assassination attempt, while mostly looking past the incendiary rhetoric of the former president himself.

    Immediately after the attack, top figures across the news media condemned the shooting, underscoring that violence against a political candidate is an attack on democracy itself. Top liberal commentators also expressed their disgust in strong terms. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, the country’s most recognized liberal personality, said she did not “have adequate words to describe how disgusted and horrified” she was.

    “There is no *no* *no* *no* violent solution to any American political conflict,” Maddow wrote on Threads. “I am grateful the former president is going to be ok, and miserably sad and angry about the other people hurt and killed. This is a very dark day.”

    The reaction from the press and liberal media figures stood in stark contrast to how right-wing media personalities have responded in the aftermath of attacks on Democrats. Instead of raising the volume or fanning the flames of false flag conspiracy theories, which top figures on the right have done after attacks on Paul Pelosi and Gabrielle Giffords, they urged for calm.

    Nevertheless, the anti-press attitude in MAGA circles has unquestionably increased. Despite the accuracy of the news media’s reporting on Trump, supporters of the former president have moved to vilify and scapegoat journalists for the heinous attack, sending anti-media attitudes to alarming heights.

    “On a daily basis, MSNBC tells its audience that Trump is a threat to democracy, an authoritarian in waiting, and a would-be dictator if no one stops him,” conservative radio host Erick Erickson wrote on X. “What did they think would happen?”

    Donald Trump Jr. blasted CNN, The Washington Post, and the press at large for recent coverage of his father.

    “Dems and their friends in the media knew exactly what they were doing with the ‘literally Hitler’ bullshit!,” he wrote on X.

    With just over 100 days until the November elections, the inflamed disposition toward the press has prompted cause for concern among news executives and spurred discussion inside newsrooms about safety and security precautions — especially with the Republican National Convention set to start on Monday. That four-day event, which was already a security concern prior to the assassination attempt, will bring together scores of journalists, alongside thousands of Trump supporters.

    “Journalists are always among the very first to run towards a crisis, and we collectively are working in overdrive to keep everyone safe,” one news executive told me. “That is the absolute top priority.”

    Oliver Darcy and CNN

    Source link

  • Washington Post Publisher Will Lewis and Incoming Executive Editor Robert Winnett Used Stolen Records While Reporting in Britain: NYT

    Washington Post Publisher Will Lewis and Incoming Executive Editor Robert Winnett Used Stolen Records While Reporting in Britain: NYT

    The freshly appointed publisher of The Washington Post, Will Lewis, and its incoming executive editor, Robert Winnett, both used fraudulently obtained phone and company records in newspaper articles while they were journalists in London some two decades ago, according to reporting from The New York Times.

    The articles, published in the British broadsheet newspaper The Sunday Times, were produced during a period the organization “has acknowledged paying the private detective explicitly to obtain material surreptitiously. That would violate the ethics codes of The Post and most American news organizations,” the NYT‘s Justin Scheck and Jo Becker wrote on Saturday. Their reporting is based on interviews with a former colleague, a published account of a private investigator, and an analysis of newspaper archives.

    The British newspaper has repeatedly denied paying anyone to act illegally.

    “I have asked my friends and family to stop sending me links to stories about Will Lewis,” a Post employee told Politico. “Every scoop is worse than the last. I can’t focus on my work when each headline heightens what’s beginning to feel like an existential crisis.”

    Lewis, who was the publisher of The Wall Street Journal from 2014 to 2020, assigned an article in 2004 while he was working as business editor at The Sunday Times. The author of that article, Peter Koenig, said this week that Lewis “had personally assigned him to write an article in 2004 using phone records that the reporter understood to have been obtained through hacking,” according to the NYT.

    After that article was published, the subject, a prominent British businessman, publicly said that his records had been stolen. While it remains unclear who initially obtained the records—they’ve never been caught—it was reported at the time that someone had called into the phone company and impersonated the businessman. In the U.K., this kind of deception is referred to as “blagging,” which holds special allowances under British law, should the obtained information be in the public interest.

    The Times’ review of Mr. Lewis’s career questioned a decision the new publisher made back in 2009 when working for The Daily Telegraph in Britain to “pay more than 100,000 (GB) pounds for information from a source. Paying for information is prohibited in most American newsrooms,” the journalists write.

    In a November meeting with Post staff, Lewis reportedly defended the payments and said the money in question had been put into an escrow account to protect a source. “But,” the Times’ team writes, “the consultant who brokered the deal said in a recent interview that there had been no escrow account and that he had doled out the money to sources himself.”

    A spokeswoman for the Washington Post told the Times that Lewis declined to answer a list of questions.

    In a November meeting before officially stepping into the role, Lewis told a room of Post staffers that his “plan is to arrive and for us to together craft an extremely exciting way forward. I can smell it. I can feel it. I know it.”

    In light of questions raised in yesterday’s reporting, it’s unclear what Lewis’ future looks like at the organization.

    Sally Quinn, a long-time Post columnist who has shown support for Lewis’ proposed changes to the newsroom, said about the Times article that “total transparency is key” and “it’s only fair to give Will a chance to speak for himself,” according to Politico.

    As Vanity Fair’s Charlotte Klein has reported, these findings come after a particularly tumultuous transition period for the Post. For the team at the legacy newsroom, this past year has been filled with the introduction of new executive staff, like Lewis, over 200 buyouts across the organization, persistent financial concerns, editorial restructuring, and general confusion about their future. The Post was particularly rattled by the abrupt exit of Sally Buzbee, who had led the paper since May 2021 and was the first woman to do so.

    Katie Herchenroeder

    Source link

  • What Putin hopes to accomplish in 5th presidential term

    What Putin hopes to accomplish in 5th presidential term

    What Putin hopes to accomplish in 5th presidential term – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Russian President Vladimir Putin was inaugurated Tuesday for a fifth term. If he completes this six-year term, he’ll become the longest-serving Russian leader since Empress Catherine the Great in the 18th century. David Herszenhorn, international desk editor for The Washington Post, joins CBS News to examine Putin’s ambitions.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    Source link

  • Could higher salaries solve the U.S. teacher shortage?

    Could higher salaries solve the U.S. teacher shortage?

    Could higher salaries solve the U.S. teacher shortage? – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The U.S. Department of Education says there’s a shortage of teachers across the nation, with 40 states reporting public school staff levels that are lower than they were before the pandemic. Daniel Pink, contributing columnist at The Washington Post, joins CBS News to examine what can be done to end the shortage.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    Source link

  • Washington Post Announces Plans To Cut 240 Jobs Through Buyouts

    Washington Post Announces Plans To Cut 240 Jobs Through Buyouts

    The Washington Post announced on Tuesday that it will be cutting 240 jobs by offering voluntary buyouts to its staff.

    In an email sent to employees on Tuesday, interim CEO Patty Stonesifer explained that the Post had been “overly optimistic” about its subscription, traffic and advertising projections over the past two years, the news outlet said.

    “The urgent need to invest in our top growth priorities brought us to the difficult conclusion that we need to adjust our cost structure now,” Stonesifer said in the email, according to the Post.

    The company decided to opt for voluntary buyouts, which will be offered for specific jobs and departments, as a way to avoid potential layoffs. The email did not specify which positions and departments would be offered buyouts, NPR reported. More details about the buyout will reportedly be provided during a staff meeting scheduled for Wednesday at 10 a.m.

    “To be clear, we designed this program to reduce our workforce by approximately 240 employees in the hopes of averting more difficult actions such as layoffs – a situation we are united in trying to avoid,” Stonesifer wrote.

    The Post currently has a total of 2,500 employees, and nearly 1,000 of them work in the newsroom, The New York Times reported, so the buyouts will affect about 10% of the company’s workforce. In January, the Post laid off 20 staffers and eliminated its Sunday magazine because of declining advertising revenue and readership.

    The media industry has faced a record number of layoffs this year, according to Axios, with at least 17,436 job cuts announced by June. News outlets such as Vox Media, NPR and the Los Angeles Times announced plans to significantly reduce their workforces in 2023, while BuzzFeed, HuffPost’s parent company, shut down its entire news division this year.

    Source link

  • Half of Twitter’s top advertisers appear to leave platform within a month of Musk’s takeover, report says

    Half of Twitter’s top advertisers appear to leave platform within a month of Musk’s takeover, report says

    The few weeks since Elon Musk took the reins of Twitter have been filled with chaos – including a launch, takedown and relaunch of premium services as well as the unbanning of controversial figures. And this week, a new report showcases the impact the management change may be having on the social media giant’s finances.

    Nonprofit watchdog group Media Matters for America published a report on Tuesday concluding that Twitter has lost half of its top advertisers since Elon Musk acquired the platform at the end of October. 

    According to the report, 50 of the platform’s top 100 advertisers, which have accounted for about $2 billion in spending since 2020, “have either announced or seemingly stopped advertising” in recent weeks. These companies had brought in over $750 million in advertising just in 2022, said the report, which relied on data current as of November 21.

    Chevrolet, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Ford and Jeep are among the companies that have either issued a statement or have been publicly reported as recently stopping their advertising on the site, the report said. Others, which Media Matters dubbed “quiet quitters,” have seemingly stopped their advertisements on Twitter since Musk’s takeover, the report found using Pathmatics data. Those companies include AMC Networks, AT&T, BlackRock, Chanel and Kellogg, among others. 

    Not every company included in the report has explicitly said that they have stopped or slowed advertisement because of Musk. Earlier this month, for example, a Kellogg’s spokesperson said that the company was pausing its ads as it continued “to monitor this new direction and evaluate our marketing spend.” 

    Another seven companies seem to be slowing their advertising on Twitter “to almost nothing,” the report stated. Those companies spent more than $255 million on the platform since 2020 and nearly $118 million since January 1. 

    An analysis by The Washington Post published on Tuesday found that more than a third of Twitter’s top advertisers have not advertised on the platform in the past two weeks. Jeep and Mars candy, for example, have not had any advertisements on the site since November 7, The Post said. 

    “Mars started suspending advertising activities on Twitter in late September when we learned of some significant brand safety and suitability incidents that impacted our brands,” Mars told The Post in a statement.  

    Many advertisers have expressed concern over the site’s potential new strategies for moderating content and how those policies could affect their brand image. 

    Earlier this week, the director of a medium-sized business-to-business company wrote on the communication site Blind that they paused their $750,000 a month Twitter ad spending in recent weeks. The company is not among those listed on the platform’s top advertisers, but the director’s widely shared post said that Twitter typically makes up about 8 to 10% of their mix. 

    In the two weeks after Musk took control of Twitter, the director said that their ad campaign performance “fell significantly” as engagement had a steep decline. They also said that “serious brand safety issues” were seen as “hardcore antisemitism and adult spam remained up for days even when flagged.”

    They did not blame Musk for these issues, noting that some of the problems could have been caused by a “shift in users on the platform,” but said that regardless, they were issues that “cost us real money.”

    Musk himself has complained of a loss of advertising on the site. 

    On Tuesday, a Twitter user pointed to an October 28 tweet in which Musk promised to create a content moderation council to discuss reinstating banned accounts. “[S]peaking of ‘completely fictional’ tweets,” the person wrote, implying that Musk ignored his promise in reinstating formerly suspended users. 

    Musk responded by blaming activists. “A large coalition of political/social activist groups agreed not to try to kill Twitter by starving us of advertising revenue if I agreed to this condition.”

    “They broke the deal,” he said. 

    A day after Media Matters published their report, Twitter also announced the launch of new “performance advertising solutions that drive results and relevance.” The launch is intended to provide a stronger investment return for companies while providing more “relevant ads” for consumers, Twitter said. 

    Li Cohen


    li.jpg

    Li Cohen is a social media producer and trending reporter for CBS News, focusing on social justice issues.

    Source link