ReportWire

Tag: Washington Post

  • Warren Buffett’s Final Berkshire Bet Brings Him Back to Newspapers

    [ad_1]

    Warren Buffett closed his career with a $351 million New York Times investment, backing one of the last thriving newspaper businesses in a digital era. Daniel Suchnik/WireImage

    It’s only fitting that one of Warren Buffett’s final investments before retirement circles back to the business that first taught him how to make money. In the last quarter of 2025, Berkshire Hathaway bought a $351 million stake (more than 5.1 million shares) in The New York Times Company, according to a regulatory filing this week. The bet speaks to longstanding ties between the newspaper industry and Buffett, who worked as a paperboy in the 1940s.

    Today, Berkshire is known for its long-term investments in insurance, energy and tech. But it was once a prominent media investor before Buffett retreated as digital advertising upended the business. But The New York Times has emerged as one of the industry’s rare success stories. The company added 450,000 new digital subscribers during the October-December quarter and lifted quarterly revenue by more than 10 percent year over year to $802 million. Last year, the company made $344 million in profit.

    Buffett, 95, officially stepped down as Berkshire’s CEO at the end of 2025, handing the reins to his successor, Greg Abel. In many ways, the new stake is a nod to Buffett’s roots. As a teenager living in Washington, D.C., he woke before 5 a.m. to deliver copies of papers, including The Washington Post. His route included six senators and a Supreme Court justice. Showing early signs of the dealmaker he would become, Buffett expanded his territory, eventually delivering some 500,000 papers. The hustle was so lucrative that he filed his first federal income tax return at age 14 after earning more than $500 in 1944.

    His affection for newspapers carried into his tenure at Berkshire, where he invested heavily in media companies such as The Washington Post and even established an annual newspaper-tossing contest at Berkshire’s shareholder meeting.

    Man holding newspaper pictured in crowd of peopleMan holding newspaper pictured in crowd of people
    Warren Buffett takes part in a newspaper-throwing contest during the annual Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meeting in 2015. Photo by Hannes Breusted/picture alliance via Getty Images

    But that love affair frayed as the internet eroded newspapers’ advertising dominance. At a 2010 Berkshire conference, Buffett remarked that it “blows your mind” how quickly the business had unraveled.

    He began pulling back soon after,  stepping down from The Washington Post’s board in 2011. Berkshire, which was at one point the paper’s largest investor, swapped its 28 percent stake in Graham Holdings Co., the Post’s then-parent company, for a Miami television station in 2014. The move followed Jeff Bezos’ $250 million acquisition of the paper a year earlier.

    By the end of the 2010s, Berkshire had exited the newspaper business entirely, selling a portfolio of 30 local publications to Lee Enterprises for $140 million in cash. The group included titles such as Buffalo News, the Omaha World-Herald and Tulsa World.

    The world was changed hugely, and it did it gradually,” Buffett said of the industry’s decline in a 2019 interview with Yahoo Finance. “It went from monopoly to franchise to competitive to… toast.” Even then, he predicted that major publishers such as The New York Times might endure. As for the rest: “They’re going to disappear.”

    The New York Times has indeed thrived, in part thanks to an aggressive expansion into games, recipes and video. Others have struggled. Under Bezos’ ownership, The Washington Post has wrestled with declining advertising revenue and subscriptions. These troubles came to a head earlier this month, when roughly one-third of the newsroom was laid off, with cuts hitting sports, books, international and metro coverage particularly hard. The Los Angeles Times, owned by biotech entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, has faced similar turbulence, including a newsroom reduction of more than 20 percent in 2024.

    Buffett’s vote of confidence has further buoyed The New York Times. Its stock surged to an all-time high this week after Berkshire disclosed its stake, capping a 12-month run in which shares climbed 57 percent.

    Warren Buffett’s Final Berkshire Bet Brings Him Back to Newspapers

    [ad_2]

    Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly

    Source link

  • Washington Post Publisher Steps Down Days After Painful Layoffs

    [ad_1]

    Will Lewis arrived at The Washington Post as the storied paper was working to shed 240 employees, saying then that as a result of faulty financial projections, “We’re not in a place that we want to be in and we need to get to that place as fast as we can.” The British media exec had come to the US to be CEO and publisher of the Post, starting in January of 2024. “My 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,” Lewis said in his first meeting with the newspaper’s staff.

    Two years later, “exciting” might not be the word that Post staffers would use regarding the publication’s “way forward.” The 148-year-old paper, which since August of 2013 has been owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, laid off over 300 journalists last week, a move that killed off its sports and books section, and left its local and international teams diminished.

    And Saturday, Lewis was out too, sending a brief email to staff that reads “After two years of transformation at The Washington Post, now is the right time for me to step aside. I want to thank Jeff Bezos for his support and leadership throughout my tenure as CEO and Publisher. The institution could not have a better owner.”

    “During my tenure, difficult decisions have been taken in order to ensure the sustainable future of The Post so it can for many years ahead publish high-quality nonpartisan news to millions of customers each day,” he concluded.

    Will Lewis in 2023

    By Carlotta Cardana/Bloomberg/Getty Images.

    According to a statement from the Post, CFO Jeff D’Onofrio has taken over as acting publisher and CEO. “The Post has an essential journalistic mission and an extraordinary opportunity. Each and every day our readers give us a roadmap to success. The data tells us what is valuable and where to focus,” Bezos said in a statement regarding the transition. “Jeff, along with [executive editor Matt Murray] and [opinion editor Adam O’Neal], are positioned to lead The Post into an exciting and thriving next chapter.”

    Lewis was not present on the Zoom during which Murray announced the layoffs Wednesday, Post staffers who were on the call tell Vanity Fair. He did, however, participate in meetings that day, during which he “gave no indication he was leaving,” The New York Times reports. He was spotted Thursday on the red carpet at the NFL Honors event in San Francisco, a pre-Super Bowl party attended by actor Tiffany Haddish, athlete Travis Kelce, and rap icon Too $hort, among others.

    [ad_2]

    Eve Batey

    Source link

  • Washington Post publisher Will Lewis says he’s stepping down

    [ad_1]

    Washington Post publisher Will Lewis said Saturday that he’s stepping down, ending a troubled tenure three days after the newspaper said that it was laying off one-third of its staff.Lewis announced his departure in a two-paragraph email to the newspaper’s staff, saying that after two years of transformation, “now is the right time for me to step aside.” The Post’s chief financial officer, Jeff D’Onofrio, was appointed temporary publisher.Neither Lewis nor the newspaper’s billionaire owner Jeff Bezos participated in the meeting with staff members announcing the layoffs on Wednesday. While anticipated, the cutbacks were deeper than expected, resulting in the shutdown of the Post’s renowned sports section, the elimination of its photography staff and sharp reductions in personnel responsible for coverage of metropolitan Washington and overseas.They came on top of widespread talent defections in recent years at the newspaper, which lost tens of thousands of subscribers following Bezos’ order late in the 2024 presidential campaign pulling back from a planned endorsement of Kamala Harris, and a subsequent reorienting of its opinion section in a more conservative direction.Martin Baron, the Post’s first editor under Bezos, condemned his former boss this week for attempting to curry favor with President Donald Trump and called what has happened at the newspaper “a case study in near-instant, self-inflicted brand destruction.”The British-born Lewis was a former top executive at The Wall Street Journal before taking over at The Post in January 2024. His tenure has been rocky from the start, marked by layoffs and a failed reorganization plan that led to the departure of former top editor Sally Buzbee.His initial choice to take over for Buzbee, Robert Winnett, withdrew from the job after ethical questions were raised about both he and Lewis’ actions while working in England. They including paying for information that produced major stories, actions that would be considered unethical in American journalism. The current executive editor, Matt Murray, took over shortly thereafter.Lewis didn’t endear himself to Washington Post journalists with blunt talk about their work, at one point saying in a staff meeting that they needed to make changes because not enough people were reading their work.This week’s layoffs have led to some calls for Bezos to either increase his investment in The Post or sell it to someone who will take a more active role. Lewis, in his note, praised Bezos: “The institution could not have had a better owner,” he said.“During my tenure, difficult decisions have been taken in order to ensure the sustainable future of The Post so it can for many years ahead publish high-quality nonpartisan news to millions of customer each day,” Lewis said.D’Onofrio, who joined the paper last June after serving as the financial chief for the digital ad management company Raptive, said in a note to staff that “we are ending a hard week of change with more change.“This is a challenging time across all media organizations, and The Post is unfortunately no exception,” he wrote. “I’ve had the privilege of helping chart the course of disrupters and cultural stalwarts alike. All faced economic headwinds in changing industry landscapes, and we rose to meet those moments. I have no doubt we will do just that, together.”

    Washington Post publisher Will Lewis said Saturday that he’s stepping down, ending a troubled tenure three days after the newspaper said that it was laying off one-third of its staff.

    Lewis announced his departure in a two-paragraph email to the newspaper’s staff, saying that after two years of transformation, “now is the right time for me to step aside.” The Post’s chief financial officer, Jeff D’Onofrio, was appointed temporary publisher.

    Neither Lewis nor the newspaper’s billionaire owner Jeff Bezos participated in the meeting with staff members announcing the layoffs on Wednesday. While anticipated, the cutbacks were deeper than expected, resulting in the shutdown of the Post’s renowned sports section, the elimination of its photography staff and sharp reductions in personnel responsible for coverage of metropolitan Washington and overseas.

    They came on top of widespread talent defections in recent years at the newspaper, which lost tens of thousands of subscribers following Bezos’ order late in the 2024 presidential campaign pulling back from a planned endorsement of Kamala Harris, and a subsequent reorienting of its opinion section in a more conservative direction.

    Martin Baron, the Post’s first editor under Bezos, condemned his former boss this week for attempting to curry favor with President Donald Trump and called what has happened at the newspaper “a case study in near-instant, self-inflicted brand destruction.”

    The British-born Lewis was a former top executive at The Wall Street Journal before taking over at The Post in January 2024. His tenure has been rocky from the start, marked by layoffs and a failed reorganization plan that led to the departure of former top editor Sally Buzbee.

    ALLISON ROBBERT

    A protester holds a cutout of Jeff Bezos’ face outside of the Washington Post office following a mass layoff, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2026.

    His initial choice to take over for Buzbee, Robert Winnett, withdrew from the job after ethical questions were raised about both he and Lewis’ actions while working in England. They including paying for information that produced major stories, actions that would be considered unethical in American journalism. The current executive editor, Matt Murray, took over shortly thereafter.

    Lewis didn’t endear himself to Washington Post journalists with blunt talk about their work, at one point saying in a staff meeting that they needed to make changes because not enough people were reading their work.

    This week’s layoffs have led to some calls for Bezos to either increase his investment in The Post or sell it to someone who will take a more active role. Lewis, in his note, praised Bezos: “The institution could not have had a better owner,” he said.

    “During my tenure, difficult decisions have been taken in order to ensure the sustainable future of The Post so it can for many years ahead publish high-quality nonpartisan news to millions of customer each day,” Lewis said.

    D’Onofrio, who joined the paper last June after serving as the financial chief for the digital ad management company Raptive, said in a note to staff that “we are ending a hard week of change with more change.

    “This is a challenging time across all media organizations, and The Post is unfortunately no exception,” he wrote. “I’ve had the privilege of helping chart the course of disrupters and cultural stalwarts alike. All faced economic headwinds in changing industry landscapes, and we rose to meet those moments. I have no doubt we will do just that, together.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Washington Editorial Board Branded Sports Betting ‘Terrible Bet

    [ad_1]

    Posted on: February 6, 2026, 12:38h. 

    Last updated on: February 6, 2026, 04:58h.

    • A 2024 op-ed from the Washington Post scolded legal sports betting
    • About a third of the newspaper’s staff was let go this week in Washington

    The Washington Post continues to make headlines after the daily newspaper based in the nation’s capital laid off a third of its staff on Wednesday.

    Washington Post sports betting editorial
    The Washington Post headquarters in One Franklin Square in Washington, DC. The Washington Post opined in 2024 that the liberalization of sports betting was a bad bet for the country. (Image: Shutterstock)

    Among the biggest WaPo job casualties was the sports department, which is being entirely shuttered. Notable former Post sports journalists include John Feinstein, Michael Wilborn and Tony Kornheiser, who would go on to create and host ESPN’s “Pardon the Interruption,” and Christine Brennan, the first woman to cover the Washington Commanders, then the Redskins, in 1985.

    DC has struggled to be a true “sports town” compared to other East Coast cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. The capital’s transient, politically-obsessed, government-focused population has been critiqued for being too occupied with those matters to care and support their local teams.

    “For decades, however, the Post treated sports as a vital part of life in the District. Whatever the rest of the country thought about Washington’s teams and fans, there was no better place to read about sports than the nation’s capital,” wrote Associated Press reporter Noah Trister.

    Scott Van Pelt, whose sportscasting career began in DC at FOX5, and today hosts “SportsCenter at Night” from Washington, also chimed in on the Post job cuts.

    “Growing up reading the Post, I didn’t realize it wasn’t like this in other cities. I didn’t know how lucky we were to enjoy giants of their craft like Kornheiser, Wilbon, Boswell, Kindred & Feinstein,” SVP wrote on X.

    Washington Post Sports Betting Coverage

    The Washington Post’s sports section is being remembered fondly by the people who worked in the department. But when it came to the legalization of sports betting across the country, an opportunity made possible by a May 2018 decision in the US Supreme Court, the Post was no fan.

    In a December 2024 opinion, the Washington Post Editorial Board concluded that legalizing sports betting was a “terrible bet.” The op-ed, one of many where the WaPo editors wrote against the landmark SCOTUS decision, held that legal sports betting has delivered societal harms to vulnerable people.

    When easy access to addictive substances or experiences, such as gambling, increases, so does addiction. Unsurprisingly, then, problem gambling and addiction are rising, along with associated financial distress, bankruptcies, foreclosures, job losses, and suicides,” the Dec. 2024 editorial read.

    The WaPo editors blamed the sportsbooks for the problems caused.

    “Legalized sports betting was supposed to enable gambling companies to identify and weed out problem bettors. Instead, the opposite has happened: High rollers who lose are targeted and courted as VIPs, showered with quick credit and other perks, and encouraged to gamble more — to ‘chase’ their losses, in industry parlance. Those who actually win big get limits imposed on how much they can bet,” the op-ed continued.

    Sports Betting Landscape

    Today, sports betting is legal in 39 states and the District of Columbia. In the nation’s capital, bettors can place legal sports bets online and in person.

    Anyone aged 18 and older can make a sports bet in DC.

    [ad_2]

    Devin O’Connor

    Source link

  • Laid‑off Washington Post staff rally outside DC headquarters after massive cuts – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    One day after the Washington Post laid off roughly a third of its newsroom, former staff and supporters gathered outside the paper’s Downtown D.C. headquarters to protest the cuts.

    The rally is organized by the Post News Guild and the Post Tech Guild l unions. The crowd listens as journalists and tech workers describe the impact of losing hundreds of colleagues.
    a man speaks into a microphone in front of a group of people
    D.C. communities reporter Michael Brice-Saddler tells the rally the Metro section staff can no longer adequately serve the region.
    (WTOP/Mike Murillo )

    WTOP/Mike Murillo

    The rally is organized by the Post News Guild and the Post Tech Guild l unions.
    The rally is organized by the Post News Guild and the Post Tech Guild l unions. The crowd listens as journalists and tech workers describe the impact of losing hundreds of colleagues.
    Protesters outside of the Washington Post office demonstrate following a mass layoff, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Allison Robbert)
    Protesters outside of the Washington Post office demonstrate following a mass layoff, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2026, in Washington.
    (AP Photo/Allison Robbert)

    AP Photo/Allison Robbert

    Protesters outside of the Washington Post office take flyers following a mass layoff, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Allison Robbert)
    Protesters outside of the Washington Post office take flyers following a mass layoff, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2026, in Washington.
    (AP Photo/Allison Robbert)

    AP Photo/Allison Robbert

    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.

    Laid‑off Washington Post staff rally outside DC headquarters after massive cuts

    One day after the Washington Post laid off roughly a third of its newsroom, former staff and supporters gathered outside the paper’s Downtown D.C. headquarters to protest the cuts.

    Former transportation reporter Rachel Weiner, who spent 15 years at the Post, told the large crowd she was struggling with the loss of her job and what it meant for the community.

    “Yeah, I’m sad about it obviously,” she said. “It is really disappointing having worked to cover as much as possible in this region because it’s also important. The Post has just decided it doesn’t matter to them.”

    Weiner said this round of cuts was handled differently from past layoffs.

    “They did something they haven’t done in previous layoffs and buyouts, which is you lock us out of the building and the systems immediately and not let us finish anything we were working on,” Weiner said.

    The rally was organized by the Post News Guild and the Post Tech Guild unions. The crowd listened as journalists and tech workers described the impact of losing hundreds of colleagues.

    D.C. communities reporter Michael Brice-Saddler told the rally the Metro section staff could no longer adequately serve the region.

    “How is the Metro desk supposed to earn the community’s trust if you keep taking resources away from the Metro section of this paper?” he said.

    The newspaper also eliminated its entire sports department.

    Speaking for her colleagues, former sports reporter Molly Hensley‑Clancy said the loss of the desk was both “heartbreaking” and “senseless.”

    “There’s nothing as riveting as sports, and there’s nothing that brings all of America together like sports,” she said.

    She continued, “There is simply is no Washington Post without sports.”

    Former enterprise reporter Marissa J. Lang, who was also laid off, said the full impact of losing so many journalists will ripple far beyond the newsroom.

    “I don’t think we know yet the impact of losing 300 journalists who hold power to account,” she told the crowd. “I know that the region and the country and the world is a worse place today for having lost all of these incredible reporters.”

    The rally also drew former staff who were not part of this week’s layoffs but came to support their colleagues. Among them was Kathryn Tolbert, who worked at the paper for 27 years before retiring a few years ago.

    “It’s heartbreaking the way the heart and soul of the paper are being torn apart,” Tolbert said. “This feels different in a really fundamental way.”

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2026 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Mike Murillo

    Source link

  • Marty Baron Warns Jeff Bezos Is Shredding The Washington Post to “Ingratiate Himself With Donald Trump”

    [ad_1]

    And then he also announced that he was going to change the opinion page, including the editorial page, and he was going to exclude from those pages, essentially, people who didn’t buy into this ideology of free markets and individual liberties. Of course, he didn’t define that. But what it meant in practice was that anybody who was left of center, even slightly left of center, was going to be excluded from the opinion pages of The Washington Post because they were evidently too critical of Donald Trump.

    And even today, there’s absolutely no moral core to these editorials today. It’s not that they won’t criticize Trump from time to time, but they do so in the softest, most mealy-mouthed way. They always use it as an opportunity to also attack the Democrats. They’re constantly falling back on the phrase “overreach.” Well, it’s not overreach. It’s abuse of power. So, with all of these decisions, from the decision not to publish a presidential endorsement to the remake of the opinion pages—and particularly the remake of the editorials themselves—they’ve just driven away readers by the hundreds of thousands who are disgusted with what they’ve seen.

    And so despite that fact, the newsroom, day-in and day-out, is just doing some tremendous work, and work that does hold the administration accountable. But it seems like with every reader they get in through the front door with great news coverage, they lose through the back door through these decisions that are being made by the owner, the publisher, and then also by the kinds of editorials that they seem to be running day after day.

    So when Post leadership says the decline in audience is the result of a problem with the newsroom, the way you see it, it’s the leadership that is to blame for the decline in audience?

    They had a lot of work to do. They had to make some changes, too. I don’t think it’s the quality of the reporting, but I think it’s a matter of how we communicate with the public. The way that people consume news and information is dramatically changing. And so if the way people consume information is dramatically changing, then the way you deliver information has to change dramatically as well. And so clearly there were things that needed to be done. Perhaps even very disruptive things that needed to be done. That said, ownership and the publisher, I believe, made things infinitely worse with their decisions. I mean, you lose hundreds of thousands of loyal subscribers? It’s appalling.

    The editorial page editor, in his couple of interviews that he did—he did one with Fox News, and he did one with The National Review, which tells you what kind of audience he’s trying to reach. He basically portrayed readers who had abandoned the Post as being partisan, that their readership of the Post was driven by partisanship. Well, it wasn’t. They saw a president who was likely to abuse his power, who was in fact abusing his power. They felt that the press needed to play an important role in holding this government or any government to account. They saw The Washington Post as doing that really well, so they supported the Post with their subscriptions. That is not partisanship. That is citizenship. The idea that the press should hold the government to account, that’s what the press ought to be doing, and it’s appropriate that people support that.

    [ad_2]

    Aidan McLaughlin

    Source link

  • Washington Post Cuts A Third Of Its Staff In A Blow To A Legendary News Brand – KXL

    [ad_1]

    (Associated Press) – The Washington Post laid off one-third of its staff Wednesday, eliminating its sports section, several foreign bureaus and its books coverage in a widespread purge that represented a brutal blow to journalism and one of its most legendary brands.

    The Post’s executive editor, Matt Murray, called the move painful but necessary to put the outlet on stronger footing and weather changes in technology and user habits. “We can’t be everything to everyone,” Murray said in a note to staff members.

    He outlined the changes in a companywide online meeting, and staff members then began getting emails with one of two subject lines — telling them their role was or was not eliminated.

    Rumors of layoffs had circulated for weeks, ever since word leaked that sports reporters who had expected to travel to Italy for the Winter Olympics would not be going. But when official word came down, the size and scale of the cuts were shocking, affecting virtually every department in the newsroom.

    “It’s just devastating news for anyone who cares about journalism in America and, in fact, the world,” said Margaret Sullivan, a Columbia University journalism professor and former media columnist at the Post and The New York Times. “The Washington Post has been so important in so many ways, in news coverage, sports and cultural coverage.”

    Martin Baron, the Post’s first editor under its current owner, billionaire Jeff Bezos, condemned his former boss and called what has happened at the newspaper “a case study in near-instant, self-inflicted brand destruction.”

    As of midday, the Post did not have any news of the changes on its website.

    Journalists pleaded with Bezos for help

    Bezos, who has been silent in recent weeks amid pleas from Post journalists to step in and prevent the cutbacks, had no immediate comment Wednesday.

    The newspaper has been bleeding subscribers in part due to decisions made by Bezos, including pulling back from an endorsement of Kamala Harris, a Democrat, during the 2024 presidential election against Donald Trump, a Republican, and directing a more conservative turn on liberal opinion pages.

    A private company, the Post does not reveal how many subscribers it has, but it is believed to be roughly 2 million. The Post would also not say how many people it has on staff, making it impossible to estimate how many people were laid off Wednesday. The Post also did not outline its finances.

    The Post’s troubles stand in contrast to its longtime competitor The New York Times, which has been thriving in recent years, in large part due to investments in ancillary products such as games and its Wirecutter product recommendations. The Times has doubled its staff over the past decade.

    Eliminating the sports section puts an end to a department that has hosted many well-known bylines through the years, among them John Feinstein, Michael Wilbon, Shirley Povich, Sally Jenkins and Tony Kornheiser. The Times has also largely ended its sports section, but it has replaced the coverage by buying The Athletic and incorporating its work into the Times website.

    The Post’s Book World, a destination for book reviews, literary news and author interviews, has been a dedicated section in its Sunday paper.

    A half-century ago, the Post’s coverage of Watergate, led by intrepid reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, entered the history books. The Style section under longtime Executive Editor Ben Bradlee hosted some of the country’s best feature writing.

    All Mideast correspondents and editors laid off

    Word of specific cuts drifted out during the day, as when Cairo Bureau Chief Claire Parker announced on X that she had been laid off, along with all of the newspaper’s Middle East correspondents and editors. “Hard to understand the logic,” she wrote.

    In the immediate future, Murray said, the Post would concentrate on areas that demonstrate authority, distinctiveness and impact, and resonate with readers, including politics, national affairs and security. Even during its recent troubles, the Post has been notably aggressive in coverage of Trump’s changes to the federal workforce.

    The company’s structure is rooted in a different era, when the Post was a dominant print product, Murray said in his note to staff members. In areas such as video, the outlet hasn’t kept up with consumer habits, he said.

    “Significantly, our daily story output has substantially fallen in the last five years,” he said. “And even as we produce much excellent work, we too often write from one perspective, for one slice of the audience.”

    While there are business areas that need to be addressed, Baron pointed a finger of blame at Bezos — for a “gutless” order to kill a presidential endorsement and for remaking an editorial page that stands out only for “moral infirmity” and “sickening” efforts to curry favor with Trump.

    “Loyal readers, livid as they saw owner Jeff Bezos betraying the values he was supposed to uphold, fled The Post,” Baron wrote. “In truth, they were driven away, by the hundreds of thousands.”

    Baron said he was grateful for Bezos’ support when he was editor, noting that the Amazon founder came under brutal pressure from Trump during the president’s first term.

    “He spoke forcefully and eloquently of a free press and The Post’s mission, demonstrating his commitment in concrete terms,” Baron wrote. “He often declared that The Post’s success would be among the proudest achievements of his life. I wish I detected the same spirit today. There is no sign of it.”

    [ad_2]

    Grant McHill

    Source link

  • Ronald Reagan biographer, legendary California journalist Lou Cannon dies

    [ad_1]

    For the record:

    2:49 p.m. Dec. 20, 2025An earlier version of this story included a photo caption that identified journalist Sander Vanocur as Lou Cannon.

    Journalist and author Lou Cannon, who was widely considered the nation’s leading authority on the life and career of President Reagan, died Friday in a Santa Barbara hospice. He was 92.

    His death was caused by complications from a stroke, his son Carl M. Cannon told the Washington Post, where his father served for years as a White House correspondent.

    The elder Cannon covered Reagan’s two-term presidency in the 1980s, but his relationship with the enigmatic Republican leader went back to the 1960s, when Reagan moved from acting to politics.

    Cannon interviewed Reagan more than 50 times and wrote five books about him, but still struggled to understand what made Reagan who he was.

    “The more I wrote,” Cannon told the Reno Gazette-Journal in 2001, “the more I felt I didn’t know.”

    Cannon was born in New York City and raised in Reno, Nev., where he attended the University of Nevada in Reno and later San Francisco State College.

    After service in the U.S. Army, he became a reporter covering Reagan’s first years as governor of California for the San Jose Mercury News. In 1972, Cannon began working for the Washington Post as a political reporter.

    Cannon recalled first encountering Reagan in 1965 while assigned to cover a lunch event for reporters and lobbyists and being surprised by Reagan’s command of the room when he spoke.

    Reagan was beginning his campaign for governor by proving he could answer questions and “was not just an actor reading a script.” At the time, the word actor was “a synonym for airhead. Well, Reagan was no airhead,” Cannon said in a 2008 interview at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library & Museum.

    To Cannon’s surprise, the reporters and lobbyists mobbed Reagan after the event was over to get his autograph. Cannon introduced himself.

    “I remember those steely eyes of his. I thought he had this great face, but his eyes are tough,” Cannon said. “His eyes are really something.”

    On the phone later, Cannon’s editor asked him what he thought of Reagan. He replied, “I don’t know anything, but if I were running this thing, why would anybody want to run against somebody that everybody knows and everybody likes? Why would you want him to be your opponent?

    “I predicted that Reagan was going to be president, but I didn’t have any idea he was going to be governor,” Cannon said. “I was just so struck by the fact that he impacted on people as, not like he was a politician, but like he was this celebrity, force of nature that people wanted to rub up against. It was like seeing Kennedy again. They wanted the aura, the sun.”

    In 1966, Reagan was elected governor by a margin of nearly 1 million votes and Cannon found himself “writing about Ronald Reagan every day.”

    Reagan’s political opponents in California and Washington consistently underestimated him, assuming the former actor could be easily beaten at the ballot box, Cannon said. Reagan ran for president unsuccessfully twice, but had the will to keep trying until he won — twice.

    “Reagan was tough, and he was determined, and you couldn’t talk him out of doing what he wanted to do,” Cannon said. “Nancy couldn’t talk him out of what he wanted to do, for god’s sakes. And certainly no advisor could or no other candidate. Ronald Reagan wanted to be president of the United States.”

    Cannon’s first book on the president, “Reagan,” was published in 1982. In 1991 he published “President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime,” which is regarded as a comprehensive biography of the 40th president.

    Cannon also authored a book about the LAPD and the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, in addition to chronicling a range of tales over the years, including the federal bust of a 1970s heroin kingpin in Las Vegas.

    Mr. Cannon’s first marriage, to Virginia Oprian, who helped him research his early books, ended in divorce. In 1985, he wed Mary Shinkwin, the Washington Post said. In addition to his wife, he is survived by three children.

    [ad_2]

    Roger Vincent

    Source link

  • US military carries out second strike, killing survivors on suspected drug boat, sources say

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. military carried out a follow-up strike on a suspected drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on Sept. 2 after an initial attack did not kill everyone on board, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.That September strike was the first in what became a regular series of attacks on alleged drug boats.While the first strike appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths, the military assessed there were survivors, according to the sources. The second attack killed the remaining crew on board, bringing the total death toll to 11, and sunk the ship.Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered the military prior to the operation to ensure the strike killed everyone on board, but it’s not clear if he knew there were survivors prior to the second strike, one of the sources said.The strike and deaths were announced by President Donald Trump on the day of the attacks, but the administration has never publicly acknowledged killing survivors.Trump said on Thursday that action on land to stop suspected drug trafficking networks in Venezuela could “start very soon,” amid ongoing questions about the legality of the U.S. military’s campaign around Latin America. Officials have acknowledged not knowing the identities of everyone on board the boats before they are struck, CNN has reported.“I have been alarmed by the number of vessels that this administration has taken out without a single consultation of Congress,” Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean told CNN this week. “Just last week, I took a look in a SCIF , because I’m a member of foreign affairs, at some documents around the sinking of these vessels and the murder of the people on those boats. Nowhere in there was there evidence of what was going on.”People briefed on the “double-tap” strike, said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.“They’re breaking the law either way,” said Sarah Harrison, a former associate general counsel at the Pentagon who now serves as a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”Details of the strikes were first reported by The Intercept and the Washington Post.Hegseth in a social media post Friday continued to defend the strikes on alleged drug boats, writing, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”“Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” Hegseth said.The U.S. military was aware that there were survivors in the water following the first strike on Sept. 2 and carried out another to both sink the vessel and kill the remaining crew, the sources said. Pentagon officials told lawmakers in briefings afterward that the second strike was done to sink the boat so it would not pose a threat to navigation, the sources said.The U.S. military has hit boats multiple times in several instances to sink them, the sources said, but the Sept. 2 strike is the only known instance where the military deliberately killed survivors.It is not clear why the survivors were not picked up, as they were following another strike in the Caribbean in October. In that instance, the Trump administration rescued two survivors and repatriated them to their home countries.In a post announcing the Sept. 2 strike on Truth Social, President Donald Trump said that the U.S. military had conducted “a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.”The administration has tried to legally justify its strikes on the boats by claiming they are carrying individuals linked to roughly two dozen drug cartels engaged in an armed conflict with the U.S. The White House has said repeatedly that the administration’s actions “comply fully with the Law of Armed Conflict,” the area of international law that is designed to prevent attacks on civilians.Many legal experts, however, say the suspected drug traffickers are civilians, not combatants, and that the strikes therefore amount to extrajudicial killings.Before the U.S. military began blowing up boats in September, countering illicit drug trafficking was handled by law enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard, and cartel members and drug smugglers were treated as criminals with due process rights.But in a classified legal opinion produced over the summer, the Justice Department argued that the president is legally allowed to authorize lethal strikes against 24 cartels and criminal organizations in self-defense, because the groups pose an imminent threat to Americans, CNN has reported.That argument has potentially been undercut by the behavior of the suspected traffickers who have been targeted: in at least one instance, a boat had turned around and was moving away from the U.S. before being struck. Survivors of the strike on Sept. 2 also posed no imminent threat, since they were effectively incapacitated, the sources briefed on the strikes and Harrison noted.Senior U.S. defense officials and U.S. allies have expressed skepticism of the legality of the military campaign. The commander of U.S. Southern Command, Adm. Alvin Holsey, offered to leave his post during a tense meeting last month with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after he raised questions about the legality of the strikes, CNN has reported. Holsey will leave his post in December, just one year into his tenure as the SOUTHCOM chief.Lawyers specializing in international law within DoD’s Office of General Counsel have also raised concerns about the legality of the strikes. Multiple current and former uniformed lawyers told CNN that the strikes do not appear lawful.The United Kingdom is also no longer sharing intelligence with the U.S. about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in U.S. military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, CNN has reported.

    The U.S. military carried out a followup strike on a suspected drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on Sept. 2 after an initial attack did not kill everyone on board, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

    That September strike was the first in what became a regular series of attacks on alleged drug boats.

    While the first strike appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths, the military assessed there were survivors, according to the sources. The second attack killed the remaining crew on board, bringing the total death toll to 11, and sunk the ship.

    Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered the military prior to the operation to ensure the strike killed everyone on board, but it’s not clear if he knew there were survivors prior to the second strike, one of the sources said.

    The strike and deaths were announced by President Donald Trump on the day of the attacks, but the administration has never publicly acknowledged killing survivors.

    Trump said on Thursday that action on land to stop suspected drug trafficking networks in Venezuela could “start very soon,” amid ongoing questions about the legality of the U.S. military’s campaign around Latin America. Officials have acknowledged not knowing the identities of everyone on board the boats before they are struck, CNN has reported.

    “I have been alarmed by the number of vessels that this administration has taken out without a single consultation of Congress,” Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean told CNN this week. “Just last week, I took a look in a SCIF [sensitive compartmented information facility], because I’m a member of foreign affairs, at some documents around the sinking of these vessels and the murder of the people on those boats. Nowhere in there was there evidence of what was going on.”

    People briefed on the “double-tap” strike, said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.

    “They’re breaking the law either way,” said Sarah Harrison, a former associate general counsel at the Pentagon who now serves as a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”

    Details of the strikes were first reported by The Intercept and the Washington Post.

    Hegseth in a social media post Friday continued to defend the strikes on alleged drug boats, writing, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”

    “Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” Hegseth said.

    The U.S. military was aware that there were survivors in the water following the first strike on Sept. 2 and carried out another to both sink the vessel and kill the remaining crew, the sources said. Pentagon officials told lawmakers in briefings afterward that the second strike was done to sink the boat so it would not pose a threat to navigation, the sources said.

    The U.S. military has hit boats multiple times in several instances to sink them, the sources said, but the Sept. 2 strike is the only known instance where the military deliberately killed survivors.

    It is not clear why the survivors were not picked up, as they were following another strike in the Caribbean in October. In that instance, the Trump administration rescued two survivors and repatriated them to their home countries.

    In a post announcing the Sept. 2 strike on Truth Social, President Donald Trump said that the U.S. military had conducted “a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.”

    The administration has tried to legally justify its strikes on the boats by claiming they are carrying individuals linked to roughly two dozen drug cartels engaged in an armed conflict with the U.S. The White House has said repeatedly that the administration’s actions “comply fully with the Law of Armed Conflict,” the area of international law that is designed to prevent attacks on civilians.

    Many legal experts, however, say the suspected drug traffickers are civilians, not combatants, and that the strikes therefore amount to extrajudicial killings.

    Before the U.S. military began blowing up boats in September, countering illicit drug trafficking was handled by law enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard, and cartel members and drug smugglers were treated as criminals with due process rights.

    But in a classified legal opinion produced over the summer, the Justice Department argued that the president is legally allowed to authorize lethal strikes against 24 cartels and criminal organizations in self-defense, because the groups pose an imminent threat to Americans, CNN has reported.

    That argument has potentially been undercut by the behavior of the suspected traffickers who have been targeted: in at least one instance, a boat had turned around and was moving away from the U.S. before being struck. Survivors of the strike on Sept. 2 also posed no imminent threat, since they were effectively incapacitated, the sources briefed on the strikes and Harrison noted.

    Senior U.S. defense officials and U.S. allies have expressed skepticism of the legality of the military campaign. The commander of U.S. Southern Command, Adm. Alvin Holsey, offered to leave his post during a tense meeting last month with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after he raised questions about the legality of the strikes, CNN has reported. Holsey will leave his post in December, just one year into his tenure as the SOUTHCOM chief.

    Lawyers specializing in international law within DoD’s Office of General Counsel have also raised concerns about the legality of the strikes. Multiple current and former uniformed lawyers told CNN that the strikes do not appear lawful.

    The United Kingdom is also no longer sharing intelligence with the U.S. about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in U.S. military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, CNN has reported.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Washington Post confirms data breach linked to Oracle hacks | TechCrunch

    [ad_1]

    The Washington Post has said that it was one of the victims of a hacking campaign tied to Oracle’s suite of corporate software apps.  

    Reuters first reported the news on Friday, citing a statement from the newspaper that said it was affected “by the breach of the Oracle E-Business Suite platform.” 

    A spokesperson for the Post did not immediately respond to TechCrunch’s request for comment 

    When reached by email, Oracle spokesperson Michael Egbert referred TechCrunch to its two advisories that it previously posted, and did not answer our questions. 

    Last month, Google said that the ransomware gang Clop was targeting companies after exploiting multiple vulnerabilities in Oracle’s E-Business Suite software, which companies use for their business operations, storing their human resources files, and other sensitive data.

    The exploits allowed the hackers to steal their customer’s business data and employee records from more than 100 companies, per Google.

    The hackers’ campaign began in late September when corporate executives reported receiving extortion messages sent from email addresses previously associated with the Clop gang, claiming that the hackers had stolen large amounts of sensitive internal business data and employees’ personal information from hacked Oracle systems. 

    Anti-ransomware firm Halcyon told TechCrunch at the time that the hackers demanded one executive at an affected company to pay $50 million in a ransom payment. 

    On Thursday, Clop claimed on its website that it had hacked The Washington Post, claiming that the company “ignored their security,” language that the Clop gang typically uses when the victim does not pay the hackers. 

    It’s not uncommon for ransomware or extortion gangs like Clop to publicize the names and stolen files of their victims as a pressure tactic, which can suggest that the victim has not negotiated a payment with the gang, or the negotiation broke down. 

    Several other organizations have confirmed they are affected by the Oracle E-Business hacks, including Harvard University and American Airlines subsidiary Envoy.

    [ad_2]

    Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai

    Source link

  • Got a store rewards card? It might not be that rewarding – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    If you own a rewards card to a department store or coffee shop, you might not be getting as many deals and freebies as you think.

    Washington Post’s Geoffrey A. Fowler speaks with WTOP’s Ralph Fox about surveillance pricing.

    If you own a rewards card to a department store or coffee shop, you might not be getting as many deals and freebies as you think.

    Retail loyalty cards which offer points, promotions, and freebies from stores such as Starbucks, Best Buy or GameStop can track your spending habits and find ways to charge you more, according to a recent exploration by Washington Post reporter Geoffrey Fowler.

    Utilizing California’s consumer privacy law, which allows users to obtain access to their data from companies as well as request their information to be deleted or not sold, Fowler took a look at the information Starbucks had on him from his loyalty card.

    Fowler told WTOP that the request revealed the coffee giant had information on all of his purchases and where he made them, building a dossier of his spending habits and building a profile of him.

    “Starbucks was trying to start a dossier on me and size me up, and ultimately figure out how much I would pay,” Fowler said.

    It even counted how often he opened the app.

    “It said one day last March, I tapped on the app more than 90 times,” Fowler said.

    Fowler discovered that Starbucks was also selling his information to data brokers and that he was rewarded less, even though he spent at Starbucks more often.

    “They call it personalized discounts. You might call it personalized ‘jacked up prices,’” he said.

    Fowler said it’s called “surveillance pricing,” where a company figures out what you are willing to pay and charges you exactly that, noting customers who use a company’s loyalty card or app less often are targeted with more deals to entice them back.

    “The opposite of what you thought was supposed to happen with a reward card was happening,” Fowler said.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Jeffery Leon

    Source link

  • Q&A: Tom Sietsema on his 26-year career as a food critic and what’s next – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Tom Sietsema’s surprise announcement that he’s stepping down as The Washington Post’s food critic and revealing his identity landed like a thunderclap across D.C.’s dining scene: sudden, seismic and impossible to ignore.

    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

    Tom Sietsema’s surprise announcement that he’s stepping down as The Washington Post’s longtime food critic and revealing his identity landed like a thunderclap across D.C.’s dining scene: sudden, seismic and impossible to ignore.

    For the past 26 years, Sietsema attempted to “eat under the radar” by remaining anonymous, while writing reviews, guides and Q&As that have been described by restaurant owners and chefs as “fair” and “honest.”

    In an interview with WTOP, Sietsema spoke about how he became a food critic, what the reality of being a food critic is like, why he’s stepping down and what he hopes to do next. Read the full Q&A below.

    The transcript below has been lightly edited for clarity.

    • Michelle Goldchain:

      Let’s go back to the beginning. What were you doing before you were a food critic?

    • Tom Sietsema:

      I went to the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, thinking I was going to be a diplomat. That did not work out because I fell in love with journalism.

      I had two really great internships with the Chicago Sun Times and ABC News, Good Morning America, and I just fell in love. I found there are these people who are paid to do what they love to do, that was write and report. I’ve always been interested in writing. I’ve always loved food. My mom was a great home cook and everything. But all that came later, right?

      I took the first journalism class at Georgetown, which was conducted by Ted Gup, a Washington Post investigative reporter. In my class was Kara Swisher, who went on to become Kara Swisher, and Mary Jordan, the illustrious Washington Post correspondent.

      I got a job at the Post as a copy aide back in 1983, and you will do anything to get out of those jobs. … So one week, Bob Woodward was looking for an assistant, as was the legendary Phyllis C. Richman, food critic and food editor. And I applied for both, and soon thereafter, I got a lovely, “Thanks, but no thanks,” from Bob Woodward, and a green light from Phyllis Richman, my predecessor.

      … And in four years as her assistant, I learned how to cook. I probably prepared the bulk of the recipes back when we had two food sections a week.

      … And so I went from there to be the food editor at the Milwaukee Journal, and I went to San Francisco, and I was a food reporter there. I was a food critic in Seattle at the Post Intelligencer. And then I did a profile on a man who changed my life. He was the number two at Microsoft, and they were developing a new product called Sidewalk.com, and it was basically your weekend section online with 10 sites around the country … and I became the national restaurant producer for them, and that got me back to D.C.

      … When that folded, about three years later, I was hired at the Washington Post as a full-time food reporter. And then two years later, I became the food critic.

    • Michelle Goldchain:

      Being a food critic sounds very glamorous and so fun, but are there any challenges that come with the job?

    • Tom Sietsema:

      Well, your weight and your health. I learned very early on the day I got this job, I hired a trainer, went to a gym, and it sounds like a yuppie affectation. But for me, it’s health insurance. I want to keep doing this job, and I ended up doing it for almost 26 years.

      … People might not think about that so much when they think of the job. You also spend a lot of time going to places, checking places out that aren’t ready for prime time for whatever reason.

      … It sort of takes over your life, in a way, I think if you do it right. And I was eating out 10 meals a week, which is a lot, and it’s also a lot of people. So, I had a regular posse, of maybe 70 people that I ate out with, which sounds like a lot, but not when you’re eating 10 meals a week. And then you’ve got to factor in where people live. So I felt like a lot of my job was being a concierge, booking tables under different reservations, remembering those names, killing off a pseudonym when too many restaurants found out about it.

      … I really tried as hard as I could to eat under the radar.

    • Michelle Goldchain:

      What words of advice or words of warning would you have for others who aspire to be food critics?

    • Tom Sietsema:

      There’s so many people writing about food, and I welcome that.

      … I think the more people at the table, the better. I do think if you want to really stand out, you should just start something. Don’t expect to get anywhere. Just do a blog, a newsletter, something that you’re really passionate about, and have someone who’s a really good writer or a friend, someone who knows how to edit, edit you and look it over and make suggestions and learn from that.

      Read the greats. Read about Ruth Reichl, Bill Addison, M.F.K. Fisher, I mean, the list goes on and on. Jonathan Gold — all these people who are or were great writers, and I also think it helps to travel as widely as you can, given your budget or whatever.

      … It gives you a marker by which to judge other restaurants here and elsewhere in the country. I also think don’t take yourself too seriously, but take what you do seriously.

      … I also think it really helps to become an expert in something that no one else is interested in. Tim Carman, my colleague at the Post, has been very good at carving out coffee and barbecue and bargain eating as his sort of areas of expertise, for instance.

    • Michelle Goldchain:

      What are some of your favorite reviews that you’ve written? Are there any that stand out for you that you’re really proud of?

    • Tom Sietsema:

      As a food critic, it was very important me to write about other than just what’s on the plate and what’s going on in restaurants. I was really proud of the year that I took to write about the 10 best food cities in the country. The Post sent me around the country for over a year to spend a week in each of the 12 cities that I looked at, and at no small expense.

      … I loved going undercover as a dishwasher in Houston. I went down there and worked in a 400-seat upscale Mexican restaurant and spent a very long shift with two young Guatemalan guys who showed me their life, and I realized you cannot exist as a restaurant without dishwashers. And I interviewed a whole slew of big-name chefs who started out as dishwashers. And what I love about that is that it’s a pathway toward getting ahead in this country.

      … I loved covering the fast food chains. I went to the top 10 most popular chains in the country, and I treated them seriously.

      … It’s easy to think about raves or rants, but one of the reviews that I’m most proud of is when I went and stood in at the nonprofit shelter, Miriam’s Kitchen, which feeds people who are homeless, who might need work, restaurant-quality food. I was extremely proud of that, and I went in just as anyone else would, and I was amazed at the way the volunteers prepared food that was well-balanced, beautiful and treated everyone as a guest, and they would call everyone a guest. And I thought that was beautiful.

    • Michelle Goldchain:

      Have you ever heard from a restaurant owner after a critical review?

    • Tom Sietsema:

      Oh, plenty. Yeah, plenty. And it’s always a difficult conversation. I always tell people when I’m fact-checking, a lot of times, chefs would ask me, “How’d we do?” I say, “You know what? I can’t, in fairness, tell you what the review is about. But I did go three or more times, and I feel like I’ve given it a fair shake. But if you’d like to talk about this afterward, or if you have any questions for me, I’m happy to answer them.”

      I’m sort of amazed at the responses that I’ve gotten. Not everyone has, but people who I never would have expected to call me back to thank me for critical review. I really admire those people, after the fact, because that’s tough.

      I realize a lot of people are employed in restaurants. It can affect people’s futures and everything and their reputations, and they always say, “Everyone should have a story written about him or her to know what it feels like. Are you misquoted? Did the reporter get something wrong?”

      So I was always very sensitive to that.

    • Michelle Goldchain:

      Are there any restaurant reviews or just food stories that you wish you had written?

    • Tom Sietsema:

      I always wanted to cover a White House State Dinner. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s Republican or Democrat, they really don’t want you in there eating the food and giving it a yay or nay or something else.

      … Mario Batali, he cooked an Italian dinner or helped cook an Italian dinner for the Obamas. And smart man that he was in that respect, he passed around these little, tiny plin — these little, tiny, filled pastas — for the press corps to try, and it’s the only time I’ve ever had a taste of something that was actually served at a state dinner at the White House.

      I have eaten in the mess. I’ve eaten on the Hill. I got into the CIA to review their dining room, which was the hardest story I’ve ever had to fact check. So, I’ve eaten around in a lot of government places, but the one that got away from me was a White House State Dinner. I would have loved that.

    • Michelle Goldchain:

      What is the best restaurant you could say you have eaten at?

    • Tom Sietsema:

      Wow, you know that just depends so much about where I am, who I’m eating with, the moment, my mood.

      People often ask about your favorites, and I think those favorites change. The same restaurant that I would pick in the fall wouldn’t be the same place I wanted to eat in the summer and vice versa.

      But when I think of magical places, I mean one that comes to mind was in India when I got a chance to eat at Indian Accent many years ago. And this is when a lot more middle-class Indians were actually going to restaurants for the first time, and because of that very famous chef in India wanted to replicate dishes to remind them of maybe childhood memories that they had eaten.

      So, the desserts were served, for instance, on a dish that looked like an Indian bed. And I thought was very clever. That was fun.

      When Atomix in New York opened, it was really one of the first fine dining Korean restaurants in the country, and that was really fun to experience. It really felt new and novel.

      But I’m also really interested in much humbler places, too. … I do go to restaurants that are maybe better known, but the best meals are almost always, street food meals.

    • Michelle Goldchain:

      Can you tell me about some of the worst restaurants you’ve eaten at?

    • Tom Sietsema:

      Probably, the one I’m best known for is Founding Farmers, which I reviewed a long time ago, and since went back to to rereview because I think it’s important to give people second chances and do-overs.

      And it’s parting advice that I’m giving to diners in my farewell essay, and I thought was important for me to walk the talk. So, I did go back to Founding Farmers, and it’s better than it was when I first encountered it.

      … There were a lot of people who hated that review and a lot of people who applauded that review, and I sometimes think as a critic if a large number of people don’t like what you’re doing and a large number of people do like what you’re doing, you’re probably doing your job.

    • Michelle Goldchain:

      D.C. has become such a food town. It’s become such a destination. What do you think has led to that?

    • Tom Sietsema:

      I think this is the smartest audience I’ve ever written for. People are from all over the world. We’re a world capital. People have a little bit more money here to go out or have in the past. And I think people are very curious here. Washingtonians are very opinionated, too. I think that helps.

      If I get a detail wrong about a West African restaurant, I’m going to hear about it from 20 people who were Peace Corps members or worked at the World Bank or the ambassador. That’s just the nature of living in Washington, D.C.

      And I also think we got great food at both ranges compared to other bigger markets like Los Angeles, San Francisco or New York. I think it’s a little easier, or was until recently, a little easier, to do business here in town because we benefited from people from San Francisco and New York and elsewhere coming here to raise a family and start their own business after working for famous chefs elsewhere.

      … I love that this city is as curious and hungry as it is.

    • Michelle Goldchain:

      I think the big question that I really wanted to ask you is, why are you stepping down now?

    • Tom Sietsema:

      Last year, I celebrated my 25th anniversary, and it just felt like a good time, but I wasn’t quite ready. And when the Post offered buyouts this year, I decided maybe this is an opportunity I really need to jump on and use that money as seed money for my next endeavors.

      I do not plan on retiring. I’ve left the Post, but I’m not retired, and I have a book in me. I have other projects that people have talked to me about. I’ve gone on sort of a listening tour in the last three or four months with people in TV, radio and elsewhere to just get a sense of what might be out there.

      So, I’m going to surprise myself, in part, but what I’m starting with, I launched my personal website, tomsietsema.com, recently. And what I want to do most immediately is recreate those joyful moments that I had in restaurants around the table. That’s the real perk of the job is getting smart, engaged, good people around a table to share food with you.

      … I think we just need more joy in our lives right now, and these are dark times, but we are not powerless. And I think we can change one meal at a time, and I’m going to do that my personal life and hopefully promote it on my website and encourage other people to do something similar.

    • Michelle Goldchain:

      So, if there’s one thing you hope people take away from your 26-year career, what would you want that one thing to be?

    • Tom Sietsema:

      I would hope that they saw me as their trusted friend who wanted to point out really good work and steer them away from not good work, and who really had their best interests at heart.

      And the great thing about food is it really can be something that brings people together. I love my online chat. That audience has been very special to me, and it’s probably been the most important thing I do every week.

      … I hope I’ve been a good friend. I hope I’m a trusted guide. I hope I’ve shined a light on people who might be struggling a little bit and need that extra push, and got it for me.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Michelle Goldchain

    Source link

  • Those closest to Tyler Robinson made horrifying discoveries in hours after Charlie Kirk killing, authorities say

    [ad_1]

    In the frantic hours after political activist Charlie Kirk was killed by a sniper at a Utah university, those closest to the alleged shooter began making wrenching discoveries, authorities said.

    In charging Tyler Robinson, 22, authorities revealed new details about the hours after the shooting and how they led to the arrest. Robinson was charged with seven counts, including one count of aggravated murder and two counts of obstruction of justice, for allegedly hiding the rifle used in the killing and disposing of his clothes, said Utah County Atty. Jeffrey Gray. He is also facing two counts of witness tampering after he allegedly instructed his roommate to delete incriminating texts, and asking them not to talk to investigators if they were questioned by authorities.

    Kirk, 31, was an influential figure in conservative and right-wing circles, winning praise for his views on heated topics, including abortion, immigration and gender identity. His death by a single gunshot during a speaking engagement at Utah Valley University last week shocked the nation and has led to vigorous debate over the motivations of his accused killer.

    Text exchanges

    Gray also provided details of a text exchange between Robinson and his roommate, a person transitioning to female with whom he was romantically involved, in which Robinson apparently confessed to the killing.

    According to the exchange detailed in charging documents, Robinson’s partner appeared to have no knowledge that Robinson had taken a rifle and had planned the shooting for about a week.

    After the shooting, authorities say, Robinson allegedly texted the partner to say: “Drop what you’re doing, look under my keyboard.” The roommate found a message that read: “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it.”

    “What??????????????” the roommate responded to Robinson in a text message. “You’re joking, right????”

    Robinson appears to confess to the killing in the text messages, and describes details of the shooting as he allegedly tried to evade authorities.

    “You weren’t the one who did it, right?” the roommate texted Robinson after the shooting, according to Gray.

    “I am, I’m sorry,” Robinson responded, according to court filings.

    While local and federal officials searched for the gunman, Gray said, Robinson allegedly texted his partner, explaining his decision to kill Kirk.

    “Why?” his partner, who was not identified by Gray, texted Robinson.

    “Why did I do it?” Robinson responded.

    “Yeah,” the roommate replied, according to Gray.

    “I had enough of his hatred,” Robinson allegedly replied. “Some hate can’t be negotiated.”

    Parents’ suspicions

    It took nearly a day before officials released grainy photos of the suspect.

    Gray said authorities were led to Robinson by his parents, including his mother who first recognized him from pictures that were released to the public of the suspected shooter. She then showed the images to her husband, who agreed the person looked like their son, according to Gray.

    Robinson’s mother told investigators that in the last year, her son had “become more political and had started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and trans-rights oriented,” Gray said.

    Robinson had also spoken to his parents about Kirk visiting the Utah campus, and had accused Kirk of “spreading hate,” Gray said.

    When his parents confronted him, Robinson admitted to the killing and said he was thinking of killing himself, Gray said.

    “Robinson implied he was the shooter and didn’t want to go to jail,” Gray said. “When asked why he did it, Robinson explained, ‘There’s too much evil, and the guy,’ referring to Kirk, ‘spreads too much hate.’”

    Discord chat

    The Washington Post reported earlier this week that Robinson appear to confess to members of a Discord chat group two hours before he was arrested.

    Citing a source, the Post quoted the message this way: “Hey guys, I have bad news for you all. It was me at UVU yesterday. im sorry for all of this.”

    The Post said he was arrested soon after.

    Agents are also interviewing people who interacted with the suspect online, FBI Director Kash Patel said.

    That includes a Discord chat that seems to have involved more than 20 people after the shooting.

    “We’re running them all down,” Patel said.

    The weapon

    The rifle, Gray said, had apparently been given to Robinson by his father as a gift. According to text exchanges with his roommate, the rifle had belonged to his grandfather at one point, and Robinson seemed concerned he would be unable to retrieve it.

    “I’m worried what my old man would do if I didn’t bring back grandpas rifle,” Robinson texted. “How the f— will I explain losing it to my old man…”

    Suspicious that his son was involved in the shooting, his father asked Robinson to send a picture of the rifle, but his son didn’t reply, according to Gray.

    [ad_2]

    Richard Winton, Salvador Hernandez

    Source link

  • Vance, Hegseth greet troops in Washington, face jeers from protesters

    [ad_1]

    White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller called DC protesters who heckled the pair “stupid white hippies.”

    Top Trump administration officials on Wednesday thanked troops deployed in the nation’s capital and blasted demonstrators opposed to the aggressive anti-crime efforts as “stupid white hippies.”

    At Union Station, Washington’s central train hub, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, accompanied by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, shook hands with National Guard soldiers at a Shake Shack restaurant.

    “You’re doing a hell of a job,” Vance said, as demonstrators drowned him out with jeers and shouts of “Free DC!” He urged troops to ignore the “bunch of crazy protesters,” while Miller dismissed them as “stupid white hippies.”

    The unfamiliar scene – the country’s vice president and top defense official visiting troops deployed not to a war zone but to an American city’s tourist-filled transit hub – underscored the extraordinary nature of the Trump administration’s crackdown in the Democratic-led District of Columbia.

    Thousands of Guard soldiers and federal agents have been deployed to the city over the objections of its elected leaders to combat what Trump says is a violent crime wave.

    City officials have rejected that assertion, pointing to federal and city statistics that show violent crime has declined significantly since a spike in 2023.

    The president has said, without providing evidence, that the crime data is fraudulent. The Justice Department has opened an investigation into whether the numbers were manipulated, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed sources.

    Rifle, shotgun possession

    Amid the crackdown, federal prosecutors in the District have been told to stop seeking felony charges against people who violate a local law prohibiting individuals from carrying rifles or shotguns in the nation’s capital.

    The decision by District of Columbia US Attorney Jeanine Pirro, which was first reported by the Washington Post, represents a break from the office’s prior policy.

    In a statement, Pirro said prosecutors will still be able to charge people with other illegal firearms crimes, such as a convicted felon found in possession of a gun.

    “We will continue to seize all illegal and unlicensed firearms,” she said.

    The White House has touted the number of firearms seized by law enforcement since Trump began surging federal agents and troops into the city. In a social media post on Wednesday, US Attorney General Pam Bondi said the operation had taken 76 illegal guns off the streets and resulted in more than 550 arrests, an average of 42 per day.

    The city’s Metropolitan Police Department arrested an average of 61 adults and juveniles per day in 2024, according to city statistics. The Trump administration has not specified whether the arrest totals it has cited include those made by MPD officers or only consist of those made by federal agents.

    A DC code bars anyone from carrying a rifle or shotgun, with narrow exceptions. In her statement, Pirro, a close Trump ally, argued that the law violates two US Supreme Court decisions expanding gun rights.

    In 2008, the court struck down a separate DC law banning handguns and ruled that individuals have the right to keep firearms in their homes for self-defense. In 2022, the court ruled that any gun-control law must be rooted in the country’s historical traditions to be valid.

    Unlike US attorneys in all 50 states, who only prosecute federal offenses, the US attorney in Washington prosecutes local crimes as well.

    DC crime rates have stayed mostly the same as they were a year ago, according to the police department’s weekly statistics.

    As of Tuesday, the city’s overall crime rate is down 7% year over year, the same percentage as before the crackdown. DC has also experienced the same declines in violent crime and property crime as it did beforehand, according to the data.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • (Media News) Washington Post Loses 200,000 Subscribers as Bezos Defends Decision to Halt Endorsements; Gannett Joins in 2024 Shift

    (Media News) Washington Post Loses 200,000 Subscribers as Bezos Defends Decision to Halt Endorsements; Gannett Joins in 2024 Shift

    [ad_1]

    In a notable shift for the 2024 election, The Washington Post and Gannett’s USA Today Network have opted out of endorsing presidential candidates, claiming to reinforce neutrality and respond to public trust concerns. The Washington Post’s decision, reportedly directed by owner Jeff Bezos after an editorial favoring Vice President Kamala Harris had been drafted, led to over 200,000 digital subscription cancellations and spurred several resignations, including senior editor Robert Kagan and two editorial board members.

    Bezos defended his stance in an op-ed, arguing that endorsements risk perceptions of bias and emphasizing that “neither campaign nor candidate” influenced the choice. Gannett’s USA Today Network, encompassing over 200 local papers, similarly announced it would avoid presidential endorsements, focusing instead on local and state-level issues.

    Critics of the endorsement halt argue that these decisions may reduce the role of major publications in guiding public understanding during critical elections. Disappointed by the decision, some Washington Post subscribers have pointed to the paper’s “Democracy Dies in Darkness” motto as a call for stronger editorial positions, especially in polarized times. Additionally, analysts have questioned whether Bezos’s diverse business interests might complicate the perception of neutrality. At the same time, some argue that Gannett’s move could diminish the national impact of its outlets, limiting their voices on broader issues affecting American voters.


    Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

    MBFC Ad-Free 

    or

    MBFC Donation


    Follow Media Bias Fact Check: 

    BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mediabiasfactcheck.bsky.social

    Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Media_Bias_Fact_Check/

    Threads: https://www.threads.net/@mediabiasfactcheck

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/MBFC_News

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mediabiasfactcheck

    Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mediabiasfactcheck

    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mediabiasfactcheck/

    Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/mbfcnews/

    Subscribe With Email

    Join 23.6K other subscribers

    [ad_2]

    Media Bias Fact Check

    Source link

  • Washington Post food critic Tom Sietsema on 25 years of dining undercover – WTOP News

    Washington Post food critic Tom Sietsema on 25 years of dining undercover – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    For 25 years in the D.C. region, Washington Post Food Critic Tom Sietsema has been helping people decide where they’ll dine out with his honest reviews.

    For nearly 25 years, Washington Post food critic Tom Sietsema has been helping people in the D.C. region decide where they’ll dine out with his honest reviews. From lavish sit-down restaurants to hole-in-the-wall spots, he’s secretly reviewed hundreds of restaurants.

    “I was taking notes under the table on pieces of paper with this thing called a pen, and stealing menus, or ‘filching menus,’ we like to say,” Sietsema recalled of his early days on the job.

    His job and the job of a spy have a lot in common.

    “Over the years, I have used hair pieces, facial hair. I’ve used stained teeth,” he said.

    The teeth idea didn’t work out well: “I would have to take the stained teeth off, put them in my napkin and actually chew the food separately, and then put my stained teeth back on and sort of look around in the dining room,” Sietsema said.

    With better technology, he knows more restaurants likely have his picture up on kitchen walls, so it’s also not uncommon for him to dine with a group or show up late, once the waitstaff is set and the appetizer orders are in.

    When deciding which restaurant to review, he likes to mix things up, from the neighborhood and city to the cuisine type — though he said a famous chef’s new restaurant also has news value.

    His first review in August of 2000 was at The Prime Rib on K Street because he said steakhouses, at the time, were places where people would go for celebrations, meetings or just a special dinner out.

    Times have since changed.

    “We can let that descriptor, ‘Washington is a steakhouse town,’ just die,” he said. “It hasn’t been true for a long time.”

    He said since then, D.C. has seen a boom of neighborhood restaurants, many of which are not aimed at people in a specific tax bracket.

    “What we have now is these really great, solid, middle-tier restaurants. Places where you would choose to go if you don’t feel like cooking on a Tuesday or Wednesday night,” he said.

    Sietsema said that over the years, he’s also watched people out in the suburbs get more and more great options, so a trip to D.C. wasn’t needed to get a good meal. His examples ranged from Padeak — a “Thai plus Laotian” restaurant in Arlington — to Melina, a Greek restaurant in North Bethesda.

    “There are dozens of places like that. That means you can stay close to home and eat well at the same time,” he said.

    In his 25th year at the Post, Sietsema said he is trying to be “reflective” with his annual guide for foodies. That means with “The 40 best restaurants in and around D.C.,” he said readers will get some classics, along with some new arrivals.

    The classics include OBELISK and its five-course Italian dinners, as well as The Bombay Club, known for its Indian cuisine.

    “I look at them, I think, ‘Wow, to be able to do something so well at such a good, high level for such a long time, is really an honor,’” he said.

    His No. 1 restaurant is Chicatana, which opened during the pandemic in Columbia Heights and, despite being close to his home, he didn’t learn about it until recently.

    “I’m celebrating Chicatana, which is owned by three young guys who have worked hard, kept their nose the grindstone, and are quietly doing a fabulous job of serving Mexican food,” he said.

    As newspapers across the country do away with their food critics, Sietsema said he is lucky the Post supports him in his role.

    “I think the Washington Post treats restaurant criticism as seriously as it does government and politics, which we are best known for,” he said.

    This includes paying for multiple dinners that include multiple diners on several occasions, because he doesn’t only visit restaurants once before reviewing them. Instead, they are thoroughly vetted through multiple visits.

    “A restaurant on Monday night is much different than a restaurant on Saturday night. Dining by yourself at the bar is a much different experience than dining with four or six people in the dining room,” he said.

    He also said in today’s world, the critic can find himself criticized after a review not everyone agrees with.

    “I think it’s kind of fun, because years ago, if people had a beef with a restaurant critic, they would call the restaurant critic, they would write in,” Sietsema said. “Now … if you read the comments following a review, we’re all being reviewed, right?”

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2024 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Mike Murillo

    Source link

  • Washington Post CEO Will Lewis’ status ‘increasingly untenable’ as newsgathering controversies mount – WTOP News

    Washington Post CEO Will Lewis’ status ‘increasingly untenable’ as newsgathering controversies mount – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    A report from the New York Times on Saturday alleges Will Lewis, the Washington Post’s embattled new publisher and chief executive, used fraudulent and unethical methods to obtain information for articles while working at the London-based Sunday Times in the early 2000s.

    Will Lewis, founder of The News Movement, is seen here in September 2023 at the publisher’s headquarters in London, UK. A report from the New York Times alleges Lewis used fraudulent and unethical methods to obtain information for articles.

    New York (CNN) — A report from the New York Times on Saturday alleges Will Lewis, the Washington Post’s embattled new publisher and chief executive, used fraudulent and unethical methods to obtain information for articles while working at the London-based Sunday Times in the early 2000s.

    Citing a former co-worker of Lewis’, a private investigator and its own investigation of newspaper archives, the New York Times said Lewis used phone and company records that were “fraudulently obtained” through hacking and paying sources for information.

    Through the haze of accusations, it remains unclear whether these claims will prompt Lewis to step down from the helm of one of the most distinguished outlets in the country. Even so, experts see Lewis’ grasp on the newsroom as one that is increasingly weakening. Margaret Sullivan, executive director of the Craig Newmark Center for Journalism Ethics and Security at Columbia University’s School of Journalism, told CNN on Sunday that Lewis’ position is “increasingly untenable.”

    These latest allegations of questionable journalistic ethics could also leave an enduring impression on a newsroom already reeling from the blindsiding ouster of its executive editor, Sally Buzbee. The allegations may also end up reflecting on the paper’s own reputation as a standard-bearer for American journalism.

    Late on Sunday, the Washington Post itself published a story about Robert Winnett, whom Lewis appointed to take the top job at the Post’s core newsroom after the US presidential election in November. TThe Post article alleged that Winnett, a Lewis protege, was linked to a man who used dishonest means to obtain information that Winnett then used in his journalism.

    In a statement, the Washington Post said: “We cover The Washington Post independently, rigorously and fairly. Given perceived and potential conflicts, we have asked former senior managing editor Cameron Barr, who stepped down from that position in 2023 and now has a contractual relationship as a senior associate editor, to oversee this coverage. The publisher has no involvement in or influence on our reporting.”

    Winnett did not immediately respond to a CNN query via LinkedIn.

    The Society of Professional Journalists, which represents about 7,000 members across the country and whose journalism standards are recognized in many newsrooms, warns journalists in its Code of Ethics: “Do not pay for access to news.”

    While SPJ does not explicitly address hacking as a means of newsgathering, it does tell journalists to “avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public” but cautions that “pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance of undue intrusiveness.”

    The new accusations come as Lewis tries to fend off resurfacing allegations of his involvement in a UK phone hacking scandal coverup, in which he has repeatedly denied wrongdoing. Lewis has previously said his role in the scandal consisted of rooting out problematic behavior.

    A spokesperson for the Washington Post told CNN Lewis declined to comment.

    A Washington Post source with knowledge of internal meetings at the paper last week told CNN that Lewis has told employees “his role as publisher is to create the environment for great journalism and to encourage and support it, that he will never interfere in the journalism and that he is very clear about the lines that should not be crossed.”

    The decade-old scandal engulfed right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World tabloid and was revived in recent years in a new lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and Hollywood figures including Guy Ritchie and Hugh Grant. At the time of the News of the World controversy, Lewis was a senior executive at Murdoch’s News Corporation.

    But a cascade of claims has followed Lewis in recent weeks, mostly involving alleged attempts to suppress stories about his connection with the coverup. Earlier this month, the New York Times first reported that Lewis, who took the reins at the Washington Post on January 2, clashed with Buzbee over publishing an article in May that named him in connection to the scandal, although a spokesperson for Lewis has denied he pressured Buzbee to quash the article, according to NPR.

    Buzbee abruptly left the company earlier this month. Days later, an NPR reporter said Lewis offered him an interview in exchange for quashing a forthcoming article about the scandal.

    The Washington Post did not respond to CNN with regard to these allegations.

    A spokesperson for Lewis told the New York Times earlier this month when the story broke that “when he was a private citizen ahead of joining The Washington Post, he had off the record conversations with an employee of NPR about a story the employee then published.” The spokesperson added that any request for an interview after he joined the Washington Post was “processed through the normal corporate communication channels.”

    Buzbee’s departure has seemingly frayed Lewis’ command of his newsroom even further. A number of Post staffers who spoke to CNN have described plummeting morale. “It’s as bad as I’ve ever seen it, truly,” one staffer said earlier this month, noting that the Washington Post has hit “rough patches” before but that the stormy atmosphere hanging over the outlet is unprecedented.

    In an opinion piece for the Guardian on Wednesday, Sullivan wrote that firing Lewis and finding a new CEO is “the cleanest, best move” Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos could make. Lewis’ insistence on tamping down reporting about him “has motivated several news organizations to look more deeply into his past; it’s possible that some new revelation will make his Post leadership position even more untenable and will force Bezos’ hand,” she added.

    Sullivan also wrote in her op-ed that Lewis could try to repair the trust both within and outside the newsroom by acknowledging that he will not cross any ethical lines and reiterating his commitment to giving staffers “true editorial independence.” He could also work toward reinstating an independent public editor or ombudsman — a position the Washington Post nixed more than a decade ago — who would oversee the paper’s implementation of journalistic ethics.

    The-CNN-Wire
    ™ & © 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

    [ad_2]

    WTOP Staff

    Source link

  • Sally Buzbee Steps Down As Executive Editor Of The Washington Post – KXL

    Sally Buzbee Steps Down As Executive Editor Of The Washington Post – KXL

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK (AP) — The Washington Post said Sunday that its executive editor, Sally Buzbee, has stepped down after three years at the top of one of journalism’s most storied brands.

    She will be replaced by Matt Murray, former editor in chief of The Wall Street Journal, through this fall’s presidential election. Following that, Robert Winnett, deputy editor of the Telegraph Media Group, will take over as editor as the newsroom restructures its operations.

    No reason was given for Buzbee’s departure. She wasn’t quoted in the news release announcing that she was leaving, and did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

    The Post also announced that it was launching a new division in its newsroom dedicated to reaching audiences who want to pay for and consume news in a different way.

    Buzbee, former top editor at The Associated Press, was selected as the Post’s top editor in May 2021. She replaced a renowned predecessor, Martin Baron, after the Post exploded in popularity during the Trump administration.

    Buzbee was the first woman to serve as executive editor of The Washington Post. And like Jill Abramson, the first woman to be top editor at The New York Times, her tenure was short: Abramson had her job from 2011 to 2014.

    It has been a miserable few years financially for the news industry, including for the Post. It has bled subscribers to the point where new publisher, Will Lewis, told employees last month that the newspaper lost $77 million last year.

    “To speak candidly, we are in a hole, and have been for some time,” Lewis said, according to the Post.

    Lewis was named late last year to replace Fred Ryan as Post publisher. He has worked at both The Wall Street Journal and The Telegraph in England, the places he turned to to find the new executives.

    He’s talked about creating a multi-tier subscription plan for The Post, similar to that in place at Politico. In an email to employees late Sunday, Lewis said the new department will focus on more video storytelling, will embrace artificial intelligence and flexible payment methods. It will begin this fall, he said.

    In an earlier meeting, “we highlighted the need to move away from the traditional one-size-fits-all approach in the news media industry and focus on creating news for a broader range of readers and customers.”

    It augurs a change to the traditional structure of the Post. In his memo, Lewis mentioned “three newsrooms.” Winnett will not take on the title of executive editor, but he will be responsible for the “core coverage areas” of politics, investigations, business, technology, sports and features. He has run The Telegraph’s news operations since 2013, the Post said.

    Murray will take over as leader of the newly-created department starting Nov. 6, the Post said. No one will have the title of executive editor: Murray, Winnett and David Shipley, the editorial page editor who will lead the “opinions newsroom,” will each report directly to Lewis, the Post said.

    “By creating three strong journalism functions — core, service/social and opinions — we are taking a definitive step away from the ‘one size fits all’ approach and moving towards meeting our audiences where they are,” Lewis said.

    The Post won three Pulitzer Prizes last month, including one in national reporting for a vivid series on the impact of the AR-15 rifle.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Grant McHill

    Source link

  • Sally Buzbee steps down as executive editor of The Washington Post – WTOP News

    Sally Buzbee steps down as executive editor of The Washington Post – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    The Washington Post said Sunday that its executive editor, Sally Buzbee, has stepped down after three years at the top of one of journalism’s most storied brands.

    FILE – Sally Buzbee, then-senior vice president and executive editor of The Associated Press, poses for a photo, Dec. 13, 2018, in New York. The Washington Post said Sunday, June 2, 2024, that Buzbee, its executive editor, has stepped down after three years at the top of one of journalism’s most storied brands. (AP Photo/Chuck Zoeller, File)(AP/Chuck Zoeller)

    NEW YORK (AP) — The Washington Post said Sunday that its executive editor, Sally Buzbee, has stepped down after three years at the top of one of journalism’s most storied brands.

    She will be replaced by Matt Murray, former editor in chief of The Wall Street Journal, through this fall’s presidential election. Following that, Robert Winnett, currently deputy editor of the Telegraph Media Group, will take over as editor.

    No reason was given for Buzbee’s departure. She wasn’t quoted in the news release announcing her departure and did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

    The Post also announced Sunday that it was launching a new division in its newsroom dedicated to reaching audiences who want to pay for and consume news in a different way.

    Buzbee, former top editor at The Associated Press, was selected as the Post’s top editor in May 2021. She replaced a storied predecessor, Martin Baron, after the Post exploded in popularity during the Trump administration.

    Yet it has been a miserable few years financially for the news industry, including for the Post. It has bled subscribers, to the point where new publisher, Will Lewis, told employees last month that the newspaper lost $77 million last year.

    “To speak candidly, we are in a hole, and have been for some time,” Lewis said, according to the Post.

    Lewis was named late last year to replace Fred Ryan as Post publisher. He has worked at both The Wall Street Journal and The Telegraph in England, the places he turned to find the new executives.

    He’s talked about creating a multi-tier subscription plan for The Post, similar to that in place at Politico. In an email to employees late Sunday, Lewis said the new department will focus on more video storytelling, will embrace artificial intelligence and flexible payment methods. It will begin operation this fall, he said.

    In an earlier meeting, “we highlighted the need to move away from the traditional one-size-fits-all approach in the news media industry and focus on creating news for a broader range of readers and customers.”

    The Post won three Pulitzer Prizes last month, including one in national reporting for a vivid series on the impact of the AR-15 rifle.

    Copyright
    © 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.

    [ad_2]

    Ivy Lyons

    Source link

  • Why Trump Won’t Stop Suing the Media and Losing

    Why Trump Won’t Stop Suing the Media and Losing

    [ad_1]

    Why would the most notoriously cash-strapped man in America waste money on frivolous lawsuits?

    On Monday, Donald Trump—whose lawyers recently announced that he can’t come up with the money to post a $454 million bond in his civil fraud case—fired off yet another suit against a news organization that reported facts he didn’t like. The targets this time are ABC News and its anchor George Stephanopoulos, who Trump alleges defamed him by stating that Trump had been found liable for raping E. Jean Carroll.

    The case looks like a sure loser. Trump was technically found liable under New York law for sexual abuse, not for rape, but the judge in the civil case ruled that, by forcibly penetrating Carroll’s vagina with his fingers, “Mr. Trump in fact did ‘rape’ Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood.” But no matter. The Stephanopoulos suit slots into a well-worn groove for Trump, who for years has lodged periodic lawsuits against alleged purveyors of “fake news” about him. Targets have included The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, Bob Woodward, and a Wisconsin TV station that ran an attack ad against him during the 2020 campaign. Trump has even gone after the board of the Pulitzer Prizes for awarding Pulitzers to the Post and the Times for their coverage of his connections to Russia.

    Filing these suits has been costly for Trump—or rather, for donors to his campaign and affiliated political action committees, who have footed millions of dollars in legal fees. Not one of Trump’s media lawsuits has ever succeeded, nor is one ever likely to, given both the underlying facts and the towering bar a president or former president faces in proving defamation. In one case against The New York Times, a judge found Trump’s argument so flimsy that he ordered Trump to pay the Times’ legal fees. In other cases, such as the one involving the Wisconsin station, the suit was quietly withdrawn a few months after it was filed.

    So why does he keep doing it? On a basic level, this appears to be just Trump being Trump—peevish, headstrong, and narcissistic. For decades, his love-hate relationship with reporters has tended to flare into legal action, as it did in 2006 when he sued the writer Tim O’Brien over a few pages in a book that questioned Trump’s personal wealth. As Trump told me in an interview in 2016, he knew he couldn’t win that suit (he didn’t) but brought it anyway to score a few points. “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and [O’Brien’s publisher] spent a whole lot more,” he said then. “I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”

    But Trump’s quixotic legal crusades are not as irrational as they appear. Suing the press serves as a branding exercise and a fundraising tool. The lawsuits show his supporters that Trump is taking the fight to those lying journalists—so won’t you contribute a few dollars to the cause? They thus have become an end unto themselves, part of an infinite loop: sue, publicize the suit, solicit and collect donations, sue again. The cases may be weak on the legal merits, but they “further his narrative of being persecuted by the radical left media,” Brett Kappel, a campaign-finance lawyer who has researched Trump’s legal actions against the press, told me.

    This narrative has been a fixture of Trump’s fundraising pitches for years. A few weeks after his inauguration, in 2017, one of his fundraising committees sent out an email urging donors “to do your part to fight back against the media’s attacks and deceptions” by sending contributions that would help “cut through the noise” of news reports. Even before Trump filed a lawsuit against CNN in August 2022 (for describing his election lies as “the Big Lie”), his campaign was using the nonexistent suit to drum up contributions. “I’m calling on my best and most dedicated supporters to add their names to stand with me in my impending LAWSUIT against Fake News CNN,” read a fundraising email. A second email sent out under Trump’s name a few hours later struck a sterner tone: “I’m going to look over the names of the first 45 Patriots who added their names to publicly stand with their President AGAINST CNN.”

    When Trump got around to filing the suit two months later, the appeals began anew. “I am SUING the Corrupt News Network (CNN) for DEFAMING and SLANDERING my name,” the campaign email read, in a chaotic typographical style reminiscent of a ransom note. “They’ve called me a LIAR, and so far, I’ve been proven RIGHT about EVERYTHING. Remember, when they come after ME, they are really coming after YOU … I’m calling on YOU to rush in a donation of ANY AMOUNT RIGHT NOW to make a statement that you PROUDLY stand with me.” The suit was dismissed last year by a federal judge appointed by Trump. Trump is appealing.

    Of course, the cost of suing news organizations is a pittance compared with what Trump’s donors are spending on his criminal defense. But it isn’t cheap. According to Federal Election Commission records culled by Kappel, the Trump-controlled Save America PAC shelled out nearly $500,000 to the firm that sued the Pulitzer Prize board on Trump’s behalf in 2022. It paid $211,000 last year to another law firm that handled Trump’s litigation against CNN, among other matters, and an additional $203,000 to the firm handling the appeal.

    The biggest recipient, by far, has been the attorney Charles Harder, the defamation specialist who represented Hulk Hogan in his successful suit against Gawker Media in 2016. From early 2018 to May 2021, according to FEC records, Harder took $4.4 million in fees from Trump-affiliated organizations. At one point in 2020, Harder’s Beverly Hills firm received more money than any other firm doing work for Trump.

    Harder’s work on Trump’s behalf didn’t produce anything close to his career-making Hogan verdict, which resulted in a $140 million award that drove Gawker into bankruptcy. Harder took the lead in Trump’s effort to suppress publication of Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury in 2018; he sent cease-and-desist letters to Wolff and his publisher, Henry Holt and Co., before the book’s release, claiming that it contained libelous passages. The book was released as scheduled and became a best seller, and Trump didn’t sue. In 2020, Harder handled Trump’s lawsuit against the Times, alleging that an opinion piece by the former Times editor Max Frankel was defamatory. A judge dismissed that suit in 2021. (Harder, who no longer represents Trump, declined to comment for this story.)

    Whether Trump’s beat-the-press strategy is a net financial winner, once all the donations are collected and the attorney fees are subtracted, is hard to say. But Trump’s filing of another hopeless lawsuit this week suggests that the math may be in his favor. Why bother paying lawyers millions of dollars to sue and appeal if the return on investment is less than zero? Trump may be petty and irrational, but he has never been accused of neglecting his own financial interests. (A Trump spokesperson didn’t return a request for comment.)

    At the moment, of course, Trump has much bigger headaches. As of this writing, he’s days away from having his assets seized to satisfy that civil-fraud judgment. His overall fundraising has lagged President Joe Biden’s. And he is burning through his supporters’ money to pay for his criminal defense. Despite all that, he still finds a way to keep filing lawsuits against the media. You almost have to admire the commitment.

    [ad_2]

    Paul Farhi

    Source link