What’s the point of owning the Washington Post if it’s no longer the Washington Post? By that, I mean the iconic US newspaper whose storied reputation is based on holding powerful people and institutions accountable, all for the sake of democracy? The paper that broke the Watergate story, thus helping to unseat a corrupt president, and that, following the New York Times, riskily published the Pentagon Papers?
When Jeff Bezos bought the Post in 2013, it was struggling financially, and its future was uncertain. The billionaire’s ownership not only restored the paper to profitability for several years, but allowed it to regain its prominence. While setting an ambitious tone for technical transformation, he properly kept his hands off the journalism, letting legendary editor Marty Baron do his job.
It worked. The Post made money, boosted digital subscriptions and nimbly took advantage of technology. Fast Company magazine, twice over the past decade, named the Post the most innovative company in media.
More importantly, the Post staff did essential journalism and hewed to standards of integrity. Despite the complaining one hears about how no one covered Donald Trump until it was too late, the Post did, with two of its top reporters even producing a book, Trump Revealed, well before the 2016 election.
The Post broke stories constantly, including – famously – the one revealing Trump’s bragging about grabbing women. The newsroom won many awards, including a Pulitzer prize for its coverage of the January 6 assault on the US Capitol.
But now, all of that is facing an existential threat. And Bezos is very much in charge of how that will play out. He has a decision to make every bit as consequential as his original purchase (for the bargain price of $250m).
This time, he needs to save the Post from his own mistake.
His appointment of the British media executive Will Lewis as publisher and CEO of the Post has turned into a debacle in recent weeks, starting with Lewis’s abrupt announcement that Post editor Sally Buzbee (Baron’s successor, appointed in 2021) was out and that he was planning a radical reorganization of the Post’s editorial operations. Lewis would bring in two new top editors, both his longtime associates, and launch a “third newsroom” to do social media and service journalism. (The supposed second newsroom – which, by definition, isn’t a newsroom – is the opinion section of the Post.)
The staff was reeling from this when it then got worse. Stories in the New York Times and NPR revealed that Lewis had tried to squelch press coverage of his own role in the aftermath of a phone-hacking media scandal in the UK, now making its way through the British courts. His disparagement of NPR’s well-respected media reporter, David Folkenflik, was particularly appalling.
All of this taints Lewis badly. Plenty of people, including many on the Post’s talented staff, think Bezos should dump him now. Meanwhile, Lewis’s very resistance to press scrutiny 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.
But, at the moment, Bezos probably has no plan B. The Post does need to reinvent itself again – it’s losing tens of millions of dollars a year, its subscriptions have dropped and its readership has plummeted. The Post is far from alone in these challenges, however, and given Bezos’s wealth, the situation does not constitute an emergency.
Short of firing Lewis and starting over with another search for a CEO – the cleanest, best move – what can Bezos do?
Several things. He should instruct Lewis to publicly commit to giving the newsroom true editorial independence, pledging not only to the staff but to the public that there is a clear line between the business side and the journalists, and that he won’t breach it again. He should reinstate the role of independent ombudsman or public editor – one that the Post maintained for many years but abandoned in 2013 – to provide transparency and accountability to readers. (I’m not interested in the job, but I do understand its value; I was the New York Times public editor before joining the Post as the media columnist.)
And, though he has not commented publicly, Bezos should do so now – making clear his personal and unwavering support for accountability-oriented journalism independent from the business side of the company.
Over the past decade, Bezos has been a good steward. He has championed the Post’s work and its journalists, celebrated their successes, and been supportive in troubled times. He has been scrupulous (as far as I know) in not interfering in the paper’s inevitable coverage of himself – including his personal life – or of Amazon, the behemoth company he founded.
He should demand the same of his new CEO, and of Lewis’s anointed editors, and insist on remedial measures, including those outlined here.
Otherwise, the news organization he owns will bear little resemblance to the one he was so proud to acquire.
And, for many reasons, that would be a tragedy.
Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture
