British journalist backs out of taking top Washington Post job amid ethics concerns

William Brangham:

Turbulence is swirling in the top rungs of one of the nation's leading media outlets. The Washington Post is again looking for an editor in chief, after the British journalist who was set to take that position just withdrew.

This comes after a year marked by staff cuts at The Post, a high-profile resignation, and mounting red ink that totaled in the millions. Lisa Desjardins has more on it all and why it matters outside the D.C. Beltway.

Lisa Desjardins:

The latest issue surrounds Robert Winnett, a British journalist who was to take over as the paper's top editor in November. Over the weekend, The Post and The New York Times published stories tying Winnett to multiple instances of using practices in the U.K. seen as unethical in this country, including fraudulently obtaining phone and other data.

Today, The Post announced he is out. Winnett was handpicked by the paper's new publisher and CEO, William Lewis, who is also a British journalist and is also facing scrutiny and calls to resign.

For more, we're joined by Margaret Sullivan, executive director for Columbia Journalism School's Newmark Center and a former columnist with The Post.

To help our audience, I want to lay out what's been reported about Robert Winnett. He is a longtime investigative journalist. Now, The Post found a former source had written that Winnett helped cover up some clandestine activity, and The Post looked at his past stories and found that he may have used illegal means in his reporting as well.

Now, Winnett has not responded publicly to these stories and allegations. As he is out and the publisher, his mentor, facing the same scrutiny, is still in, both of these men have long journalistic records. Are these transgressions enough to say they should not be leading The Post?

Margaret Sullivan, Former Columnist, The Washington Post:

Well, Lisa, I think what we see is a history of prominent journalism.

I think some of the practices that they have used, both Winnett and Lewis, have been things that maybe they fly in the U.K., but they actually run pretty counter to the ethics and standards of the — of sort of big journalism in the United States.

So, these are things that The New York Times and The Washington Post would not do, for example, paying for a scoop, working with a source who has stolen material. These kinds of things, which have come out in recent days, are just practices that, again, maybe they're kind of OK in tabloid journalism in the U.K., but they really seem to us to be very dicey.

Lisa Desjardins:

This is a statement about journalism in the United States, but also The Washington Post. But I want to ask you, why does it matter to folks outside of the D.C. Beltway who was running the newsroom at The Washington Post?

Margaret Sullivan:

Well, The Washington Post is one of the most important news organizations in the nation and really in the world. So, and it has, as I think people may remember, a really strong history of holding powerful people and institutions accountable, most notably during the 1970s, when it broke the Watergate story and helped to unseat a corrupt president in Richard Nixon.

But even in many cases since then, the kind of journalism that The Washington Post does, kind of investigative work it does, has been extremely important and has resonated through all of the media ecosystem and has made a difference in our country.

So it's not just one newsroom who cares. It really goes far beyond that.

Lisa Desjardins:

We have seen billionaires have increasing influence directly on media. That includes Jeff Bezos, of course, the Amazon founder, owner of The Post.

What does this say about his leadership there? He said he wanted an ethical paper for the next kind of dawn of journalism.

Margaret Sullivan:

I think that Bezos has been a good owner for The Post. When he took over, when he bought The Post for a bargain price of $250 million back in 2013, he — Don Graham, who — the Graham family had owned The Post for a long time, told him, the paper is going to scrutinize you and it's going to scrutinize Amazon and you need to be OK with that.

And Bezos has really done that. He has not interfered in the editorial product. He hasn't messed with the newsroom and he has tolerated The Post's own reporting on him. And he's really celebrated The Journalism at The Post and been a supportive and good owner.

So now the question is, what — which Washington Post does he want to be the owner of, the one that he bought or something else that is — seems to be on the horizon right now?

Lisa Desjardins:

Your last column with The Post was a warning and a clarion call to journalists about the 2024 election year. The stakes, again, are so high. How did you think journalism is situated right now to deal with this strange, let me call it, election that we're facing?

Margaret Sullivan:

I think journalists have learned a lot since the mistakes of 2016, when they really didn't see Donald Trump coming entirely, and they have self-corrected somewhat.

But I think what needs to happen is for journalists to emphasize, as my friend and colleague Jay Rosen says, not the odds, but the stakes, in other words, not the horse race or the polls or who's up and who's down, but what are the consequences of this election?

And so I would like to see newsrooms really stress that in the months ahead, because American voters need to go to the voting booth knowing exactly what's at stake.

Lisa Desjardins:

Margaret Sullivan, thank you so much.

Margaret Sullivan:

You're welcome. Thanks.