Can Will Lewis Survive the Big Mess at the Washington Post?

How did all this drama begin?

Late on Sunday, June 2, Will Lewis announced that Washington Post executive editor Sally Buzbee was stepping down and said that two of his former colleagues would be taking top editorial roles at the publication. Former Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Matt Murray (who was appointed to that role in 2018 by Lewis) was replacing Buzbee as interim executive editor. And Robert Winnett, the deputy editor of the Telegraph Media Group, would join the Post in a newly created editor role following the 2024 presidential election. (Lewis and Winnett worked together in London at the Sunday Times, and Lewis later hired Winnett at the Daily Telegraph.)

Lewis also announced a restructuring of the Post’s editorial operation to take effect later this year, at which point it would be expanded from two newsrooms, news and opinion, to three: “core” news coverage, to be led by Winnett; opinion, to be led by current editorial-page director David Shipley; and a new division, focused on service journalism, social media, and video storytelling aimed at nontraditional news consumers, to be led by Murray. (All three will report to Lewis.)

Though Buzbee hasn’t spoken publicly about her departure, the New York Times reports that Lewis offered her the job of leading the new third newsroom, but she saw that as a demotion. The Post’s report on her departure said the same, adding that Buzbee had resisted the timing of the restructuring plan and “the two agreed she should depart, according to two people familiar with the conversation.” In a conference call after her departure was announced, Buzbee told colleagues, “I would have preferred to stay to help us get through this period, but it just got to the point where it wasn’t possible.”

Vanity Fair’s Charlotte Klein, who has profiled Buzbee, reports that most people at the Post expected Lewis to eventually replace Buzbee — particularly since he had already been bringing in his own people for C-suite roles — but no one expected her to be replaced in the middle of an election year.

The all-hands meeting that followed was a disaster

The shake-up came as a big shock at the Post, and things got tense the next day when Lewis met with staff to discuss the changes, per employee accounts and recorded audio of the 45-minute meeting shared with other news organizations (as well as the Post’s own report).

According to NOTUS, employees described it as a “shit show” during which Lewis, repeatedly challenged by questions about the changes, became “extremely defensive,” at times seeming visibly annoyed or exasperated, and was increasingly combative as the meeting went on.

A major point of contention from multiple staff members regarding the leadership changes was the lack of diversity. “The most cynical interpretation sort of feels like you chose two of your buddies to come in and help run the Post, and we now have four white men running three newsrooms,” a top reporter said to Lewis. The CEO admitted diversity “wasn’t great” and promised to improve it, but Post employees told NOTUS that he never directly answered whether or not he considered diverse candidates before making his decision. New executive editor Matt Murray, for his part, vowed that diversity would be a “constant commitment” and pointed to The Wall Street Journal’s having it’s most-diverse-ever masthead during his tenure as editor-in-chief.

Staff members additionally questioned Lewis about the timing of Buzbee’s departure and his vision for the publication and grilled him for details about how, exactly, the new third newsroom would be staffed and run and what impact that would have on the Post’s other journalism.

There were several instances in which Lewis defensively explained to the Post’s staff that the reason he had to make major changes was because the publication just wasn’t getting the job done, as reported in this exchange by Vanity Fair:

At one point Lewis was asked whether he was intentionally bringing in people who come from a different culture than the Post. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore,” Lewis said. “So I’ve had to take decisive, urgent action to set us on a different path, sourcing talent that I have worked with that are the best of the best.”

The Guardian talked to some Post staffers about the meeting as well:

Journalists who spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity said it was seen as a “mask-off moment” in which Lewis, who had initially been welcomed and seen as a “cheerful and self-deprecating Brit” had suddenly turned hard-edged, in effect telling journalists “you guys have fucked up and I am here to save it”.

What about the allegations Lewis helped cover up the Murdoch empire’s phone-hacking scandal?

In the background of all this upheaval at the Post are old allegations that Lewis was involved in a cover-up of the notorious 2011 U.K. phone-hacking scandal that upended Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. The unproven allegations, which Lewis denies, are included in an ongoing lawsuit filed in the U.K. by Prince Harry and other hacking victims.

At the time, Lewis worked for Murdoch’s News UK, the parent company of the now-shuttered News of the World, the British tabloid where, for years, journalists hacked the phones of celebrities, athletes, and politicians for exclusive scoops and committed other misdeeds like paying police for information. After the hacking came to light, Lewis was given the job of cleaning up the mess and restoring News Corp.’s reputation. He and a colleague formed the company’s management and standards committee, investigated the hacking and other misdeeds, then provided the names of those responsible to police.

Lewis has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in the matter and is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit. “I did whatever I could to preserve journalistic integrity,” he told the Post in an interview after he was hired as the company’s CEO.

Nonetheless, some still believe Lewis helped senior News Corp. executives shield their guilt, as the New York Times explains in a new recap of the old scandal:

“He oversaw the throwing under the bus of journalists acting under standard procedure for decades,” said Dan Evans, a former News of The World reporter who was prosecuted, provided evidence to the authorities and has since called for press reform. “It’s the way things were done” …

In court documents, phone-hacking victims say that Mr. Lewis allowed the deletion of huge volumes of emails that could have implicated senior News Corp figures in the scandal. The lawsuit claims that, on his watch, eight filing cabinets full of potential evidence disappeared.

The plaintiffs say that, rather than turning over everything to the authorities, he ignored information that could have implicated senior executives. They assert that he was part of a scheme to fabricate a security threat to justify deleting emails …

Mr. Lewis’s work on the Management and Standards Committee placed him within Mr. Murdoch’s inner circle … But his work on the committee infuriated many staff members at News Corp’s British newspapers. Some believed that low-level reporters had been sacrificed, as Mr. Evans describes it, “to keep his boss out of an orange jumpsuit.”

Lewis reportedly clashed with Buzbee over Post coverage of the phone-hacking lawsuit

On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that in May, Lewis had objected to, but ultimately did not block, a Washington Post story on the hacking lawsuit when executive editor Sally Buzbee informed him about the article — and that the exchange “rattled” Buzbee:

[Buzbee] informed Mr. Lewis that the newsroom planned to cover a judge’s scheduled ruling in a long-running British legal case brought by Prince Harry and others against some of Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids, the people said. As part of the ruling, the judge was expected to say whether the plaintiffs could add Mr. Lewis’s name to a list of executives who they argued were involved in a plan to conceal evidence of hacking at the newspapers. Mr. Lewis told Ms. Buzbee the case involving him did not merit coverage, the people said. When Ms. Buzbee said The Post would publish an article anyway, he said her decision represented a lapse in judgment and abruptly ended the conversation.

The interaction rattled Ms. Buzbee, who then consulted with confidants outside The Post about how she should handle the situation … Mr. Lewis did not prevent the article from publishing. But the incident continued to weigh on Ms. Buzbee just as she was considering her future at the paper, according to the two people with knowledge of her decision-making process.

The Times also reported that the clash was not the primary reason Buzbee decided to resign. The Post itself subsequently confirmed the Times’ account “with two people familiar with the meeting” and additionally reported that it was the second time such a clash had happened, as “Buzbee had a similar exchange with Lewis in March over a previous story about the case, another person said.”

Responding to a reporter at his own publication, Lewis denied trying to pressure Buzbee or that he had violated the traditional firewall separating CEOs and publishers from editorial decision-making:

Lewis called the account “inaccurate” and said that he “did not pressure her in any way.” He acknowledged Buzbee had informed him of plans to publish a story but that he was “professional throughout.” He also said he doesn’t recall ever having used the phrase “serious lapse in judgment.” He described a process, which he said was common, of asking about a story and offering thoughts or input “if appropriate,” and making clear that the decision to publish ultimately rested with the editor. “I know how this works, I know the right thing to do, and what not to do. I know where the lines are, and I respect them,” he wrote, adding: “The Executive Editor is free to publish when, how, and what they want to. I am fully signed up to that.”

The Post’s newsletter editors were told not to promote the Post’s story about the phone-hacking lawsuit

Semafor’s Max Tani reported on May 22 that shortly after the Post’s story about the phone-hacking lawsuit referencing Lewis was published, newsletter editors were told not to include the story in their newsletters:

In an email to some staff Tuesday evening, newsletter chief Elana Zak issued a brief directive with the subject line “don’t distribute this story,” linking to Tuesday’s development. “Please do not put this Prince Harry story in any of your newsletters,” she wrote.

The email contained no additional information explaining why the paper did not want the story included in its newsletters. A Post employee familiar with the situation told Semafor after this story was published that Tuesday’s email was a result of some internal miscommunication between editors.

The Post declined to explain what happened but provided a statement from managing editor Matea Gold: “The Washington Post is committed to covering this topic — and all stories — independently, rigorously and fairly. We had routine discussions about the promotion of this piece across our platforms.”

Lewis criticized an NPR reporter after he said Lewis had tried to kill an earlier story on the phone-hacking lawsuit

One day after the Times report came out about Lewis’s meeting with Buzbee, veteran NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik dropped another bomb. He reported that late last year, Lewis had tried to kill his story about the same lawsuit:

In December, I wrote the first comprehensive piece based on new documents cited in a London courtroom alleging that Lewis had helped cover up a scandal involving widespread criminal practices at media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s British tabloids … At that time, Lewis had just been named publisher and CEO by Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, but had not yet started. In several conversations, Lewis repeatedly — and heatedly —offered to give me an exclusive interview about the Post’s future, as long as I dropped the story about the allegations.

At that time, the same spokesperson, who works directly for Lewis from the U.K. and has advised him since his days at the Wall Street Journal, confirmed to me that an explicit offer was on the table: drop the story, get the interview.

In response to the report, Lewis told the Washington Post that Folkenflik was “an activist, not a journalist” and said that “I had an off the record conversation with him before I joined you at The Post and some six months later he has dusted it down, and made up some excuse to make a story of a non-story.”

A Lewis spokesperson also told the New York Times that the conversation between Lewis and Folkenflik was off the record:

“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 spokeswoman said any interview requests with Mr. Lewis after he joined The Post were “processed through the normal corporate communication channels.”

Folkenflik denied that the quid pro quo part of their conversation was off the record, per the Post:

Folkenflik told The Post late Thursday their off-the-record agreement related to the substance of the hacking case and the story he was reporting, but not “his efforts to induce me to kill my story.” He added that Lewis and a London-based press aide “subsequently confirmed” the nature of the offer in exchanges “that were not placed off the record.” Folkenflik noted that Lewis did not deny the offers.

He also responded to Lewis’s claim that he was an activist rather than a journalist, noting to the Associated Press:

Certainly journalists at The New York Times, CNN and inside his own newsroom have concluded that what I reported this week about him and previously has been newsworthy. I think that’s the verdict on our carefully reported journalism. He can say what he wants, but that doesn’t make this go away.

Lewis initially complained to a Post reporter about the Post’s coverage of the Post reorganization

Per the Washington Post:

The Post reported Monday that Lewis had offered Buzbee oversight of the new division of The Post’s newsroom — a position she declined — and that Buzbee had attempted to persuade Lewis to hold off on his reorganization until after the election. On Wednesday, when a reporter approached him to follow up on scheduling an interview, he expressed his disapproval with The Post’s recent reporting on its own leadership changes. When asked Thursday via email to identify inaccuracies in the piece, he replied: “Forgive me, there has been a lot written by various people. You may well have captured this accurately.”

Morale at the Post has plummeted

CNN’s Oliver Darcy reported Thursday that according to a half-dozen Post staffers, “morale has fallen off a cliff” since the leadership shake-up:

“It’s as bad as I’ve ever seen it, truly,” one staffer said Thursday, noting that The Post has hit “rough patches” before, but that the stormy atmosphere hanging over the Washington outlet is unprecedented.

Lewis’ uncouth dispatching of Buzbee poisoned much of the goodwill he had earned with his employees over the preceding six months … While staffers who spoke with CNN have praised Matt Murray, the former top editor at The Wall Street Journal who will lead the newsroom through the election, they have raised serious concerns about the appointment of Fleet Street veteran Robert Winnett, who will take the reins after the conclusion of the presidential contest.

Darcy reports that “all hell broke loose” inside the company after the reports that Lewis had attempted to pressure Buzbee over the phone-hacking coverage.

Lewis tried to do some damage control with a memo

Late Friday, Lewis sent out a contrite memo to Post staffers regarding the tumultuous week. “I need to improve how well I listen and how well I communicate so that we call agree more clearly where urgent improvements are needed and why,” he wrote.

More readable format of Will Lewis's memo to staff tonight here https://t.co/7ZaSJjHJit pic.twitter.com/UpPAytYgop

— Katie Robertson (@katie_robertson) June 7, 2024

“There was a lot for us to process at the Newsroom meeting on Monday, so we need more time together to listen and talk it through,” he added, asking staff to sign up for upcoming “Say It sessions” to ask him more questions about the new newsroom or other issues. He also said that, regarding the workforce-diversity concerns raised at the meeting, “I know I cannot just talk a good game, but need to show it. I assure you I will.”

The only reference Lewis made to his alleged coverage meddling was to share the Post’s official statement denying he pressured Buzbee “from publishing any stories” and defending his track record as a publisher. But the statement only referenced the New York Times report on his clashes with Buzbee, not the Post’s own reporting on the meetings or the additional reported meddling about the NPR story last year.

He did however acknowledge that “trust has been lost”:

Here is what I ask of you. I know trust has been lost because of scars from the past and the back-and-forth from this week. Let’s leave those behind and start presuming the best of intent. If we do that, you will see where we are going in a different light. We don’t have to agree about everything but we all are dedicated to building the future of The Post, and mapping our way there together.

Robert Winnett’s past is drawing scrutiny

Winnett, the deputy editor at the Telegraph, where he once served as Will Lewis’s lieutenant, will take over as de facto executive editor of the Post’s “core” newsroom after the election. The Guardian reports that Winnett has been involved in some past scoops that would never pass muster at a publication like the Post:

Winnett was involved in the reported payment of £110,000 ($140,000) for documents exposing British parliamentarians expenses. In the UK, the story led to a large number of resignations, several prosecutions and multiple journalism awards for Lewis and the Telegraph. But a payment of that kind would be seen as a violation of US journalistic ethical codes.

One episode that has received far less attention involves allegations that, while working as a senior reporter at the Sunday Times, Winnett was involved in a covert operation in 2004 involving the trainee reporter Claire Newell, now investigations editor at the Telegraph. According to an account in the book Flat Earth News by Nick Davies, the former Guardian investigative reporter who exposed the hacking scandal, Winnett and a colleague rented an office to manage Newell — then in her early 20s — who had signed up with a secretarial agency that supplied typists for government departments, and fed “secret documents” to the Sunday Times. Newell was arrested, according to a Guardian account at the time, but never prosecuted. 

Winnett seems to be well respected by colleagues, however, and Steve Bannon is a big fan, too:

Former colleagues of Winnett described him as a skillful operator, driven by the desire to dig up dirt, rather than a distinct ideology. “He’s a news person,” said one. “Someone you want in charge in a crisis.” A colleague said he was a major loss to the Telegraph, adding: “He’s a very nice guy, extremely sharp, understated and a very good journalist.”

Several also noted the closeness between Lewis and Winnett, with one former colleague saying: “He’ll carry out whatever Will wants him to do.”

In an endorsement that would probably make Post journalists blanch, Winnett’s appointment was seen as a good thing by the rightwing nationalist and Trump ally Steve Bannon, who told the Guardian he was “a great pick to make the fucking thing more relevant and readable”.

Are the Post and Lewis just not a good fit?

One lingering issue is the difference between how newsrooms are run in the U.K. versus the U.S. Politico Playbook notes that Lewis’s Fleet Street attitude seems to be triggering some culture shock at the Post:

A series of emerging revelations, stemming from his announcement Sunday that executive editor Sally Buzbee would be leaving, to replaced by two close Lewis associates, have left the Post newsroom “uniformly horrified,” in one reporter’s words.

More consequentially, they have revealed that the clash between Lewis’ rough-and-tumble sensibilities and the Post’s more high-minded culture is even more profound than previously suspected: He can’t seem to figure out where his Fleet Street smarts are necessary and refreshing, and where they are toxic and self-defeating.

Inside the Post, the conversation among reporters surveyed Thursday night centered on whether Lewis could continue leading the publication.

The Financial Times pointed out that Lewis’s leadership style is quite normal in the U.K.:

While Lewis’s words rattled the Post newsroom, the tone will be familiar to anyone who has worked at a British newspaper. Blunt words and savage autopsies over the day’s coverage in news meetings were common when Lewis and Winnett were forging their careers. Some executives compare Lewis’s actions with those of [Emma] Tucker, whose glass-walled office was last month covered with Post-it notes as Wall Street Journal staff protested against job cuts and restructurings. Both Tucker and Lewis previously worked for the Financial Times.  

The other clash is about the Post’s general ethos, as former Post media reporter Paul Farhi explains at the Daily Beast:

What I learned in [my 36 years at the Post] — what was reinforced on a near-daily basis — was the Post’s fidelity to basic journalistic principles, such as fairness and accuracy. High on this list was the necessity to avoid conflicts of interest, actual or perceived. Reporters weren’t supposed to march in political rallies, put up yard signs for candidates or contribute in any way to them, lest it suggest partisanship …

Buzbee was not always a popular figure among the Post’s rank and file, but her dedication and integrity were never questioned. The circumstances of her unceremonious departure made her an object of sympathy among many staffers, and surely will leave some lingering sore feelings.

But the suspicion and cynicism surrounding Lewis may linger longer. The events of the past few days have made staffers wonder: Does Lewis get the fundamental principles and codes the Post has tried to live by for decades? Does he want to remake the Post’s business fortunes at the price of its hard-won reputation?

Longtime media columnist Jack Shafer notes at Politico that it has seemed as though Lewis somehow doesn’t understand how reporters think:

Whether you believe the reporting from the Washington Post, the New York Times and NPR or you believe Lewis, he seems to know squat about how to talk to reporters — especially considering his long-tenure as a top reporter and editor in England before moving over to the business side.

Lewis had to know coming into the Post job that the phone-hacking subject could not be avoided, despite his blanket refusal to discuss it again. Now, he may be completely innocent of any misconduct in the phone-hacking, and all the reporters are being busybodies. But reporters rarely take no for an answer.

If he expects to lead an institution whose remit is accountability, he must expect reporters — both those who work for him and those who work for other publishers — to demand answers. Dropping the subject down the memory hole or deterring the Post from writing about it was never a serious option. Can he possibly be that dense?

At the Guardian, former Post columnist Margaret Sullivan writes that Lewis has, for now, lost the newsroom:

I worked at the Post as media columnist from 2016 to 2022. I know my former colleagues to be top-flight and much of their journalism to be essential. They are also nimble and, in general, not resistant to change. They fully understand that we’re in a challenging new era. But they also are tough-minded journalists who demand to be treated with transparency and honesty and respect.

Journalists don’t delude themselves that newsrooms are democracies; they know they don’t get a vote. But successful newsrooms aren’t dictatorships, either. If Lewis is going to be successful in his quest to make the Post soar again, he’ll need to have the journalists with him all the way. Right now, they’re not. And that means a course correction is in order.