Washington Post CEO tried to kill story about himself. It wasn't the first time(npr.org)
npr.org
Washington Post CEO tried to kill story about himself. It wasn't the first time
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/07/nx-s1-4995105/washington-post-will-lewis-tries-to-kill-story-buzbee
9 comments
Ironic considering WaPo's header still states "Democracy dies in darkness".
What is ironic about that ? I believe that is WAPO's openly declared mission statement.
Maybe it's just hypocritical though the framing originally is ironic. Indeed it's their declared mission, but that would be like if the Nazi's mission statement was "for the betterment of the Jews."
[deleted]
Right. It’s just now that’s a goal, not something to avoid.
I'm just going to leave this here:
https://www.lawdork.com/p/washington-post-bombshell-washingt...
https://www.lawdork.com/p/washington-post-bombshell-washingt...
Once again demonstrating that mainstream media is both trustworthy & fake, and not, simultaneously.
Democracy though, that's purely legit.
Democracy though, that's purely legit.
A guiding principle for the world's media should be this: do not hire anyone who was in a senior position at any UK-based Murdoch newspaper*, from the early 80s to the late 2000s.
Unfortunately too many of these profoundly corrupted people have found their way into the US media after a spell laundering their reputations by working as media advisers or television media commentators or writers or whatever.
Phone-hacking is barely even the start of it. The Daniel Morgan case is so, so, so much worse. These people toxify the print media landscape in the UK and (as bad and as ridiculously partisan as US media has lately become) you should keep them away.
They are bad people. It's just that simple. The News Of The World in particular was so malign the only fix was to shut it down, and shutting it down was also probably expedient as it meant they weren't a going concern when the Daniel Morgan case was reviewed again. It was poison.
* and verify the hell out of people who worked for the Daily Mail or Daily Mirror -- like, make them do a deposition to your in-house lawyers. This shit spread somewhat into the more traditionally conservative right-wing tabloids and into the left-wing tabloids too.
Unfortunately too many of these profoundly corrupted people have found their way into the US media after a spell laundering their reputations by working as media advisers or television media commentators or writers or whatever.
Phone-hacking is barely even the start of it. The Daniel Morgan case is so, so, so much worse. These people toxify the print media landscape in the UK and (as bad and as ridiculously partisan as US media has lately become) you should keep them away.
They are bad people. It's just that simple. The News Of The World in particular was so malign the only fix was to shut it down, and shutting it down was also probably expedient as it meant they weren't a going concern when the Daniel Morgan case was reviewed again. It was poison.
* and verify the hell out of people who worked for the Daily Mail or Daily Mirror -- like, make them do a deposition to your in-house lawyers. This shit spread somewhat into the more traditionally conservative right-wing tabloids and into the left-wing tabloids too.
I was surprised that Bezos would pick the executive for something as important as the Washington Post... from a Rupert Murdoch property, of all places.
Bezos is smart, and, whether from a belief in American principles, or just optics... I don't understand taking on the risk and appearance of tainting the WaPo with key people from one of the most corrupt and toxic franchises.
Is it a signaling of power and intent, in how the WaPo will now be used, with known henchperson installed?
Or maybe Bezos knows some redeeming info on this talent, and it's not what it looks like?
I'd love to see the Amazon-style 6-page proposal brief on this.
Bezos is smart, and, whether from a belief in American principles, or just optics... I don't understand taking on the risk and appearance of tainting the WaPo with key people from one of the most corrupt and toxic franchises.
Is it a signaling of power and intent, in how the WaPo will now be used, with known henchperson installed?
Or maybe Bezos knows some redeeming info on this talent, and it's not what it looks like?
I'd love to see the Amazon-style 6-page proposal brief on this.
This sort of illustrates the point I am making, because to US eyes in particular, and anyone with understanding of corporate scandal in general, Will Lewis looks like a minor player in News International with clean hands; he worked for the Sunday Times for a bit, and was then hired as part of the cleanup effort in 2010. So in principle he is outside the "big picture".
So perhaps Bezos will have seen his time at the Telegraph, where he was something of a moderating influence, to be more important. And it may be true.
But the reality is you cannot get close to the executive at News International without the blackness seeping in. They are cynicism and expedience in human form. So, as good as his intentions may be... there's probably something he doesn't want talked about. Hard to keep from getting stained.
(I mean, put aside the politics of Fox News and consider the actions of Fox News, and I am here to tell you that the British Murdoch tabloids were more insidious than Fox News and -- until 2020 or so -- worse in their plain abuse of the truth)
Murdoch is a uniquely toxic influence on the discourse. He makes William Randolph Hearst look like a soft-soap.
So perhaps Bezos will have seen his time at the Telegraph, where he was something of a moderating influence, to be more important. And it may be true.
But the reality is you cannot get close to the executive at News International without the blackness seeping in. They are cynicism and expedience in human form. So, as good as his intentions may be... there's probably something he doesn't want talked about. Hard to keep from getting stained.
(I mean, put aside the politics of Fox News and consider the actions of Fox News, and I am here to tell you that the British Murdoch tabloids were more insidious than Fox News and -- until 2020 or so -- worse in their plain abuse of the truth)
Murdoch is a uniquely toxic influence on the discourse. He makes William Randolph Hearst look like a soft-soap.
As much as I agree with you about how awful Murdoch is, he is not unique. I would not let Viscount Rothermere off the hook so easily.
Oh I don't -- see my footnote about the Mail and the Mirror.
It's specifically unwise to hire anyone who worked for News International in that period, but if one is going to take a risk on hiring really any tabloid exec from that same window of time, it would be prudent to get the in-house lawyer to grill them about their conduct so it doesn't come back to bite.
Also Murdoch's awfulness is truly international, whereas the Daily Mail is only beginning to get there.
It's also not just the Brits + Fox News. Aussie Sky News is shocking.
In contemporary international culture, in the 1980s through to the 2020s, there is nobody remotely like Murdoch. There are pretenders who will try to fill the gap when he finally goes, but it's difficult to imagine a single person rising to his level of influence for another few generations. Elon Musk would love to have that clout.
It's specifically unwise to hire anyone who worked for News International in that period, but if one is going to take a risk on hiring really any tabloid exec from that same window of time, it would be prudent to get the in-house lawyer to grill them about their conduct so it doesn't come back to bite.
Also Murdoch's awfulness is truly international, whereas the Daily Mail is only beginning to get there.
It's also not just the Brits + Fox News. Aussie Sky News is shocking.
In contemporary international culture, in the 1980s through to the 2020s, there is nobody remotely like Murdoch. There are pretenders who will try to fill the gap when he finally goes, but it's difficult to imagine a single person rising to his level of influence for another few generations. Elon Musk would love to have that clout.
Yes, the Murdoch media is vile, but this goes for all of the British papers. The Daily Mail is a wretched place to work but is also the most well respected in the UK in terms of the training they give. That should tell you everything.
It does not go for all British papers at all. Not even all of the nationals.
Probably most of the tabloids though.
The Guardian, The Observer, the FT, the Independent, and some of the significant regionals (Manchester Evening News, Brighton Argus, Oxford Mail, the Scotsman, the Belfast Telegraph etc.) have much better reputations.
I doubt there is a news publication in the world that has escaped having a toxic newsroom at least at some point.
Probably most of the tabloids though.
The Guardian, The Observer, the FT, the Independent, and some of the significant regionals (Manchester Evening News, Brighton Argus, Oxford Mail, the Scotsman, the Belfast Telegraph etc.) have much better reputations.
I doubt there is a news publication in the world that has escaped having a toxic newsroom at least at some point.
Of the ones above, the FT is perhaps the only respectable one that I can speak of; Liz Truss claiming it is a left wing publication is still hilarious. But have you read the Manchester Evening News lately? The Guardian too has diminished enormously in quality in recent years IMO. For me, the definition of toxic also encompasses the purpose of their work, not just how it is carried out. Newspaper journalists now seem consumed by driving up engagement metrics for particular audience segments and that seems pretty steady across most of the UK news media right now. There are some promising signs of change with new outlets like the Byline Times but the more established media is absolutely inbred and rotten (and dying, if you look at their audience metrics).
Print news is dying because of the internet; this isn't news.
But we're talking about the most fundamental questions of journalistic ethics here.
The Murdoch media -- in particular the News Of The World -- hacked people's phones (including a missing teenager's phone, deleting voicemails and giving her family and the police false evidence she was alive), spied on people, and colluded with a series of corrupt police. And on really an epic scale.
The News Of The World was little more than a criminal enterprise, and essentially everyone in News International leadership knew it.
Even the (utterly loathsome, morally corrosive) Daily Mail is a beacon of truth by comparison.
But we're talking about the most fundamental questions of journalistic ethics here.
The Murdoch media -- in particular the News Of The World -- hacked people's phones (including a missing teenager's phone, deleting voicemails and giving her family and the police false evidence she was alive), spied on people, and colluded with a series of corrupt police. And on really an epic scale.
The News Of The World was little more than a criminal enterprise, and essentially everyone in News International leadership knew it.
Even the (utterly loathsome, morally corrosive) Daily Mail is a beacon of truth by comparison.
I hope the readers here are aware that this is just the political smear machine being turned on by WaPo employees and their political friends that don't like this guy because he told them that 'woke' doesn't sell and that WaPo is dying because of them.
The timing of this NPR story is not a coincidence and is politically driven. That doesn't mean that it has no merit, but read it with a skeptical eye.
The more you know....
The timing of this NPR story is not a coincidence and is politically driven. That doesn't mean that it has no merit, but read it with a skeptical eye.
The more you know....
It would certainly be a pretty wild turn of events if the sources for this story were all lying.
That the reporter themselves had already been given a quid pro quo request to drop a previous story is telling, though.
That the reporter themselves had already been given a quid pro quo request to drop a previous story is telling, though.
Why do you think so?
I hope readers realize anyone using the term woke in 2024 to express an opinion can and should ignored. The term has been fully co-opted into smear that basically is a catch-all for all the terms for all the bad words that used to be used for black people, gay people, and most other minorities in the US.
woke is a slur now? lol
They said smear not slur, and they are pretty plainly correct considering we have everything from sitting politicians using it to describe any legislation that honestly reports US history, to youtube personalities using it to rant for hours about minorities in star wars.
Woke. RIP.
[deleted]
It's not surprising that left wing "journalists" are going out with a bang after being fired. They weaponize media to their advantage wherever allowed. If the CEO is to be believed at all, this is a completely false claim.
Not surprising. All the left does is lie about people.
Edit: Of course this is flagged. The left instinctively does this when they have no counter-argument
Not surprising. All the left does is lie about people.
Edit: Of course this is flagged. The left instinctively does this when they have no counter-argument
This isn't specific to the "left". People abusing power is a story as old as time, no matter whether it's the media or something else used.
I mean, sometimes there are legitimately terrifying people who try to silence their employees by holding their power structure above them. It's not exclusively left wing or right wing, this is a phenomenon throughout history that is fairly apolitical in nature. If you Google "presidential controversy" you'll certainly find damning examples on both sides of the aisle.
There is nothing terrifying about a CEO controlling what his or her company does. The level of personal attacks and gaslighting coming from left wing employees is undeniable. Once you let them into an organization, they will destroy it. Many companies are now acting to rectify the situation. I'm certainly rooting for WaPo to shed its reputation as an activist-controlled organization.
Edit: Flagged again. The left cannot stand being called out directly for their bad behavior. Accountability is what they fear the most -- and they will face it in spades!
Edit: Flagged again. The left cannot stand being called out directly for their bad behavior. Accountability is what they fear the most -- and they will face it in spades!
> Accountability is what they fear the most -- and they will face it in spades!
We're flagging your comment because it is entirely unrelated to the topic and most people capable of reading it can determine that you're trying to be inflammatory. We refuted your nonsense rhetoric one time already, we're not going to bother paying attention to you if you don't want to expand the dialogue you pretend to care about.
We're flagging your comment because it is entirely unrelated to the topic and most people capable of reading it can determine that you're trying to be inflammatory. We refuted your nonsense rhetoric one time already, we're not going to bother paying attention to you if you don't want to expand the dialogue you pretend to care about.
[deleted]
There is a common idea expressed by quotes like:
Oscar Wilde: "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."
PT Barnum: "There's no such thing as bad publicity"
And Will Lewis has done a masterful job here of demonstrating his understanding of that quote.
He actually allowed 2 negative stories to be published about him in his own paper, and now we have another "negative story" (wink wink) about he "almost" didn't allow those first 2 stories to go through.
Well played sir.
Oscar Wilde: "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."
PT Barnum: "There's no such thing as bad publicity"
And Will Lewis has done a masterful job here of demonstrating his understanding of that quote.
He actually allowed 2 negative stories to be published about him in his own paper, and now we have another "negative story" (wink wink) about he "almost" didn't allow those first 2 stories to go through.
Well played sir.
IF I said something truthful but unflattering about one of my CEO's, publicly (slack, personal blog post, linked in) I would expect to get fired.
They weren't asked to say something nice, or make something up. This wasn't an advertiser.
Leak the story somewhere else and keep your dam job.
They weren't asked to say something nice, or make something up. This wasn't an advertiser.
Leak the story somewhere else and keep your dam job.
You are NOT a journalist.
If you want to be a CEO of a respected newspaper you better have your shit together or expect one of your journalist to write negative things about you.
If you want to be a CEO of a respected newspaper you better have your shit together or expect one of your journalist to write negative things about you.
You mean these journalists?
https://www.lawdork.com/p/washington-post-bombshell-washingt...
Here is the thing, if you're going to break news, break all of it. The WAPO fucks up on the regular and prints retractions frequently. So it's not like breaking this and maybe having to retract was going to be some major loss on their part.
https://www.lawdork.com/p/washington-post-bombshell-washingt...
Here is the thing, if you're going to break news, break all of it. The WAPO fucks up on the regular and prints retractions frequently. So it's not like breaking this and maybe having to retract was going to be some major loss on their part.
Journalism is supposed to be free of conflicts of interest.
There are specific protections enshrined in American labor law to protect employees from retaliation.
Business owners can't just do whatever they want.
There are specific protections enshrined in American labor law to protect employees from retaliation.
Business owners can't just do whatever they want.
> Journalism is supposed to be free of conflicts of interest.
I didn't disagree with this.
>> American labor law to protect employees from retaliation
There sure are. Saying bad things about your boss, in public, is not one of them. We have the right to speak freely. That mean that the government can not curtail it. It does not mean that you can Scream fire in a crowded theater. It does not mean you can slander people (Alex jones). It does not mean your employer cant fire you over what you say... saying bad things about your CEO isnt protected, neither is being a racist, or an assholee or..
> Business owners can't just do whatever they want.
No they cant, there are laws... however if you shit on your company or your boss they can fire you, legally:
https://nysba.org/can-you-get-fired-for-speaking-your-mind-o....
I didn't disagree with this.
>> American labor law to protect employees from retaliation
There sure are. Saying bad things about your boss, in public, is not one of them. We have the right to speak freely. That mean that the government can not curtail it. It does not mean that you can Scream fire in a crowded theater. It does not mean you can slander people (Alex jones). It does not mean your employer cant fire you over what you say... saying bad things about your CEO isnt protected, neither is being a racist, or an assholee or..
> Business owners can't just do whatever they want.
No they cant, there are laws... however if you shit on your company or your boss they can fire you, legally:
https://nysba.org/can-you-get-fired-for-speaking-your-mind-o....
It's for this exact reason that the role of ombudsman was created for many newspapers, although the role has been dying for a while now. Having someone on staff whose job it is to keep everyone accountable makes things easier on everyone.
Journalists should have that freedom!
k33n(1)
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40600052