WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.200 Music. 00:00:09.041 --> 00:00:12.161 Hello and welcome to the edition. 00:00:13.061 --> 00:00:17.761 It's a rather packed week and I wanted to get to deal with this rather timely 00:00:17.761 --> 00:00:22.321 story that's developing both in the UK and over in the US. 00:00:22.401 --> 00:00:25.161 I can't think of a better person to join me than Matthew Ingram, 00:00:25.241 --> 00:00:29.601 the Chief Digital Writer at the Columbia Journalism Review. 00:00:29.741 --> 00:00:33.521 Dare we ask, Matthew, how long you've been covering digital media and the move 00:00:33.521 --> 00:00:36.661 from print to digital? Wow. 00:00:36.941 --> 00:00:40.781 I guess 20 odd years. 00:01:04.441 --> 00:01:08.841 Matthew, to a bigger theme, right? Which is that we Brits are rather taking 00:01:08.841 --> 00:01:10.781 over your massive media institutions. 00:01:11.241 --> 00:01:14.321 I mean, in a way, it's been happening for some time. You know, 00:01:14.401 --> 00:01:18.981 it's, it seems to come in waves. That's my impression, anyway. 00:01:19.881 --> 00:01:24.801 So certainly not the first time that Brits have sort of taken senior positions 00:01:24.801 --> 00:01:27.961 at American papers or publications. 00:01:29.581 --> 00:01:32.641 Yeah, it seems to go in cycles. goals yeah 00:01:32.641 --> 00:01:35.921 it's certainly true i mean that we've had people it 00:01:35.921 --> 00:01:38.801 was david yellen that edited the new york post for a while 00:01:38.801 --> 00:01:42.601 as well as he did the sun here we've had obviously 00:01:42.601 --> 00:01:48.801 uh you know condé nass anna winter running the roost there for a while there's 00:01:48.801 --> 00:01:53.161 been all sorts of things but you're right it does seem to come in waves um but 00:01:53.161 --> 00:02:02.341 there's a host of big media institutions emma tucker at of one of the major publications. 00:02:02.481 --> 00:02:05.461 So it's fascinating to watch really how that is. 00:02:05.581 --> 00:02:11.621 And I guess that does lead us to The Washington Post where Rob Winnett, 00:02:11.781 --> 00:02:16.561 who was formerly the deputy editor of The Telegraph, has been appointed the 00:02:16.561 --> 00:02:17.981 editor of The Washington Post. 00:02:19.041 --> 00:02:25.701 And Will Lewis, who was at The Sunday Times, is set to be the publisher there. 00:02:26.541 --> 00:02:30.281 So two of the most senior roles at one of the biggest newspapers papers in the 00:02:30.281 --> 00:02:32.201 U.S. taken over by Brits. 00:02:32.321 --> 00:02:37.501 But it's not gone smoothly, has it, Matthew? Explain what has developed over the last few days. 00:02:39.271 --> 00:02:43.931 Well, it seems to be one thing after another. I mean, at first it was a report 00:02:43.931 --> 00:02:49.971 from NPR that Will Lewis had effectively tried to cut a deal to give them an 00:02:49.971 --> 00:02:53.531 interview, provided they squashed a story. 00:02:53.671 --> 00:02:56.271 Obviously, his version of those events is different. 00:02:57.331 --> 00:03:02.231 But I think that sort of started it. This is the story about involvement in 00:03:02.231 --> 00:03:05.551 phone hacking, the phone hacking scandal that sort of rocked media institutions 00:03:05.551 --> 00:03:08.491 here for a long time, and the pullout is still going on. Yeah. 00:03:09.271 --> 00:03:13.411 And David Fulkenflik at NPR reported that this had happened. 00:03:13.931 --> 00:03:20.571 And I think that struck a lot of people in quite a negative way. 00:03:20.651 --> 00:03:25.391 Obviously, you don't want the publisher of a major investigative newspaper to 00:03:25.391 --> 00:03:27.291 be doing these sorts of things. 00:03:27.291 --> 00:03:35.031 And so then but then it's been one kind of revelation after another, just involving his, 00:03:35.411 --> 00:03:43.131 you know, involvement in in the hacking or sort of trying to cover up the hacking scandal. 00:03:44.171 --> 00:03:50.971 Deleting emails is one suggestion, although obviously that hasn't been proven. 00:03:50.971 --> 00:04:00.451 But kind of, and then, you know, the incoming editors involvement in a variety of stories, 00:04:00.551 --> 00:04:11.071 suggestions that unethical practices were involved in either stealing or acquiring documents. 00:04:11.071 --> 00:04:13.851 Documents and so yeah it seems to be every 00:04:13.851 --> 00:04:16.991 day there's a new kind of suggestion that 00:04:16.991 --> 00:04:20.731 these two chaps maybe you know look 00:04:20.731 --> 00:04:26.311 at things somewhat differently than uh than american journalists might well 00:04:26.311 --> 00:04:31.451 okay well we'll discuss that bit in a bit but what has fascinated me over the 00:04:31.451 --> 00:04:37.891 last few days is how um american journalism has suddenly been gripped by the phone hacking scandal 00:04:38.191 --> 00:04:41.811 which obviously was a huge deal here but 00:04:41.811 --> 00:04:48.491 rather a number of years ago and so I'm kind of struck that you've all kind 00:04:48.491 --> 00:04:52.711 of picked up on this after all this time you know obviously the Guardian played 00:04:52.711 --> 00:04:58.251 a huge part in the original story I mean was this a thing you know that you, 00:04:59.011 --> 00:05:04.291 picked up that was being discussed during the height of it however many years ago it was now. 00:05:05.918 --> 00:05:12.278 I mean, it was, you know, I certainly remember reading about it, but it was a little like, 00:05:12.818 --> 00:05:17.638 not should I describe it, it was a little like reading about a conflict in a 00:05:17.638 --> 00:05:23.638 far off country where you, you know, you're sorry that people are involved in 00:05:23.638 --> 00:05:25.838 a war, but it doesn't really impact you. 00:05:26.378 --> 00:05:31.938 So, and I'm sure there was an attitude of sort of, well, there go the Brits, 00:05:31.998 --> 00:05:34.338 you know, this kind of thing is totally normal. 00:05:34.438 --> 00:05:40.138 And, and we don't understand them or how they run their newspapers. 00:05:40.358 --> 00:05:46.858 And so I don't remember. I remember there being kind of shocked pieces, 00:05:46.978 --> 00:05:48.998 but they disappeared fairly quickly. 00:05:49.298 --> 00:05:53.578 And then I guess it just receded into the background and everyone forgot about it. 00:05:54.518 --> 00:05:57.938 Yeah, it was a huge thing here. 00:05:57.978 --> 00:06:01.618 Obviously, one of the stories that really gripped things and changed things 00:06:01.618 --> 00:06:07.038 was, you know, stories about missing children, their phones being hacked, 00:06:07.098 --> 00:06:08.518 you know, all this kind of thing. 00:06:09.578 --> 00:06:13.918 Again, those stories wouldn't have resonated with you in the US because, 00:06:14.018 --> 00:06:16.658 you know, the original story wasn't there in the US. 00:06:16.798 --> 00:06:22.658 But it's, I mean, in some ways, was this a bit of a failure of American media 00:06:22.658 --> 00:06:25.598 and American journalism not to be picking up on this, given that, 00:06:25.658 --> 00:06:30.658 for example, lots of the allegations were made against Murdoch Publications, 00:06:30.898 --> 00:06:36.838 who obviously has transatlantic interests, interests in Australia as well. 00:06:37.198 --> 00:06:41.298 Do you think maybe people should have done more in the US earlier with this? 00:06:41.398 --> 00:06:46.358 And now only because some of these people involved in the allegations are heading 00:06:46.358 --> 00:06:49.778 your side of the Atlantic, people are paying attention to it? 00:06:50.998 --> 00:06:53.998 Yeah, I think you could always say more could have been done. 00:06:55.558 --> 00:07:03.778 I do think that with Murdoch there's there's a sort of unspoken attitude that 00:07:03.778 --> 00:07:09.438 well that's just Rupert like he does you know he's he's always sort of been this, 00:07:10.078 --> 00:07:14.418 character and he seems to get away with things that other people wouldn't and 00:07:14.418 --> 00:07:19.958 so I wonder if maybe some of it was just oh well it's just Murdoch being Murdoch 00:07:19.958 --> 00:07:23.958 I I do think there is a tendency to sort of, 00:07:23.978 --> 00:07:30.958 I don't want to call it parochial, but just paying attention more to the kind 00:07:30.958 --> 00:07:36.058 of minutiae of American politics and media, of which there is plenty, 00:07:36.238 --> 00:07:43.418 and maybe assuming that people just wouldn't be that interested in a lot of 00:07:43.418 --> 00:07:47.798 coverage of, you know, UK media. It's hard to say, to be honest, but... 00:07:49.669 --> 00:07:52.929 Yeah, exactly. It is kind of fascinating. 00:07:53.049 --> 00:07:56.769 And there's always a thing that we tend to, we here in the UK tend to spend 00:07:56.769 --> 00:08:00.329 more time and attention on what you guys are doing than vice versa. 00:08:00.689 --> 00:08:05.729 I think that's just always a natural cultural thing. But just back to our earlier 00:08:05.729 --> 00:08:09.769 discussion, what do you think it is that has drawn American media proprietors 00:08:09.769 --> 00:08:14.229 to want to bring Brits over to run your major media institutions? 00:08:14.229 --> 00:08:18.749 Well, if I could put it in a single word, I would say desperation. Okay. 00:08:19.569 --> 00:08:24.989 No offense to these fine gentlemen or to your media institutions, 00:08:25.249 --> 00:08:31.989 but I, in particular, the Washington Post, in this case, is in dire straits. rights. 00:08:32.629 --> 00:08:39.509 So, you know, traditional American journalists have done their best and it isn't good enough. 00:08:40.009 --> 00:08:45.069 And the paper is losing tens of millions of dollars and its audience has declined 00:08:45.069 --> 00:08:47.749 by 50% in just a couple of years. 00:08:47.929 --> 00:08:52.389 That's, you know, any way you look at it, that's a significant problem. 00:08:52.889 --> 00:08:59.289 And so I think someone, I don't know if it was Jeff Bezos, but someone thought, 00:08:59.429 --> 00:09:03.289 you know, We need to bring people in to stir things up or to try new things 00:09:03.289 --> 00:09:06.169 or to come at this problem differently. 00:09:06.729 --> 00:09:11.849 And so if you want people who are going to stir things up and try things differently, 00:09:11.989 --> 00:09:16.249 maybe they bring some editors in from the UK and see what happens. 00:09:17.789 --> 00:09:20.509 Well, they've certainly stirred things up, haven't they, these guys? 00:09:21.069 --> 00:09:23.849 Yes. And they do do things differently. 00:09:25.329 --> 00:09:30.769 It would appear, well, allegedly. Allegedly. How do you think this plays out? 00:09:30.789 --> 00:09:33.069 How does this end? Are these two going to take up their roles? 00:09:33.789 --> 00:09:38.909 Are they going to have to resign? Jeff Bezos is going to have to find some new 00:09:38.909 --> 00:09:40.849 people. How does this play out, do you think? 00:09:42.692 --> 00:09:47.092 I mean, it's difficult to say. It feels to me as though this is building towards 00:09:47.092 --> 00:09:55.272 a situation where they them taking these jobs becomes untenable, depending on how you. 00:09:56.272 --> 00:10:00.932 I mean, the question mark is Jeff Bezos. How is Jeff Bezos thinking about this? 00:10:01.172 --> 00:10:04.812 Does he care about the sort of reputation of The Washington Post? 00:10:04.812 --> 00:10:07.712 I don't know it's hard 00:10:07.712 --> 00:10:11.392 to say because you know he he has 00:10:11.392 --> 00:10:14.132 so many other things the Washington Post I'm sure is 00:10:14.132 --> 00:10:17.112 a tiny it's it's a rounding error are you 00:10:17.112 --> 00:10:21.972 suggesting that Amazon is bigger than the Washington Post a little 00:10:21.972 --> 00:10:25.792 bit I find that hard to believe um but I 00:10:25.792 --> 00:10:30.572 think it's it's sort of how how desperate 00:10:30.572 --> 00:10:34.292 is he to do something different and does 00:10:34.292 --> 00:10:37.192 he care that this might impair the 00:10:37.192 --> 00:10:40.312 reputation of the post I honestly don't know I think 00:10:40.312 --> 00:10:46.452 it does and I think if if these two fellows take over it's going to send a very 00:10:46.452 --> 00:10:51.392 strong message and maybe not an attractive one about the direction the post 00:10:51.392 --> 00:10:57.692 is going But what we don't know is whether Jeff Bezos cares about any of that. Yeah. 00:11:00.312 --> 00:11:03.732 Well, we should be clear. Obviously, they're trying to defend themselves. 00:11:04.072 --> 00:11:08.812 Well, Lewis, you know, they're trying to, you know, they're insistent that they 00:11:08.812 --> 00:11:10.312 should be able to take these jobs, right? 00:11:10.392 --> 00:11:13.292 You know, they're not admitting that they've done, you know, 00:11:13.292 --> 00:11:14.512 terrible things or whatever. 00:11:14.992 --> 00:11:19.612 But it is a dilemma. emma and for now 00:11:19.612 --> 00:11:22.852 look i've even you know you said it's become untenable 00:11:22.852 --> 00:11:25.692 could be become untenable for them to take these jobs you've 00:11:25.692 --> 00:11:28.672 even got the bizarre situation which always happens in 00:11:28.672 --> 00:11:32.792 media reporting i'm sure you've had to experience it yourself whereby um 00:11:32.792 --> 00:11:35.652 people's editors are 00:11:35.652 --> 00:11:41.292 being investigated by their own publication because now to be honest i i think 00:11:41.292 --> 00:11:46.272 the post has done an excellent job i mean i'm i'm impressed by their coverage 00:11:46.272 --> 00:11:51.632 of their own incoming publisher and editor it's that's an incredibly difficult 00:11:51.632 --> 00:11:55.452 position for a media writer to be in a reporter. 00:11:56.312 --> 00:12:01.992 And um you know i've i've been impressed by by the lengths to which they've gone they could have, 00:12:02.712 --> 00:12:06.072 done a kind of you know short cover 00:12:06.072 --> 00:12:08.972 the controversy thing but they've really been on top 00:12:08.972 --> 00:12:12.232 of it so in a way that that that makes 00:12:12.232 --> 00:12:17.432 it better in terms of the Washington Post's brand I suppose you could say but 00:12:17.432 --> 00:12:23.292 it doesn't solve the ultimate problem um but do you do you think some of it 00:12:23.292 --> 00:12:27.912 is that they're going so hard on it because the reporters don't really want 00:12:27.912 --> 00:12:30.332 these guys to take over is there a bit of that going on do you think. 00:12:31.773 --> 00:12:35.813 I'd be surprised if it wasn't. I mean, to me, 00:12:35.913 --> 00:12:41.393 the sort of the central conflict is between the way Americans look at their 00:12:41.393 --> 00:12:48.093 journalism and the purpose of it and how you do it and the way a lot of British media do. 00:12:48.373 --> 00:12:52.833 And I think there's, it's just a fundamentally much more competitive market in Britain, I think. 00:12:53.013 --> 00:12:59.173 And so that the way, the way people think about what they're doing is, 00:12:59.453 --> 00:13:03.153 you know, we got to fight for readers and fight for audience and we have to, 00:13:03.153 --> 00:13:04.453 we have to break stories. 00:13:04.493 --> 00:13:09.193 And if we push the limits a bit, then that's, you know, that's the way it goes. 00:13:09.493 --> 00:13:12.353 Whereas I think in American journalism has 00:13:12.353 --> 00:13:15.433 this kind of view of itself as you know this 00:13:15.433 --> 00:13:18.553 this ethical public policy oriented 00:13:18.553 --> 00:13:21.753 servant of the people thing so the 00:13:21.753 --> 00:13:24.473 yeah the two those two things are clashing to some 00:13:24.473 --> 00:13:29.213 extent here i mean you're definitely rather more high-minded or you know the 00:13:29.213 --> 00:13:33.073 i think americans definitely romanticize media more and you're definitely i 00:13:33.073 --> 00:13:37.713 think somewhat more high-minded whereas british journalists most of i think 00:13:37.713 --> 00:13:42.413 like to think of it as a bit more of a scrappy trade right Right, right. 00:13:42.533 --> 00:13:45.593 It's a game. And you have to win. 00:13:45.813 --> 00:13:53.233 And maybe you cut corners, or you do things that, we're talking about sort of, 00:13:53.233 --> 00:13:57.413 in many of these cases, we're talking about kind of ethical gray areas. 00:13:57.413 --> 00:14:00.473 Um and i'm sure american journalists 00:14:00.473 --> 00:14:03.713 would not like to hear them described that way but certainly 00:14:03.713 --> 00:14:06.653 in the way in the sort of difference between 00:14:06.653 --> 00:14:10.613 the way americans are looking at these things and i think the way lots of british 00:14:10.613 --> 00:14:16.033 editors would look at it you see a lot of um it says a lot about i think about 00:14:16.033 --> 00:14:19.553 the way those two countries look at their media and what it's for and how they 00:14:19.553 --> 00:14:24.113 do it i do although of course i mean i always think it's a bit of a cliche as 00:14:24.113 --> 00:14:25.553 well to discuss it in these terms? 00:14:25.813 --> 00:14:28.853 Because, you know, there are, let me tell you, there are plenty of British journalists 00:14:28.853 --> 00:14:30.953 with grandiose ideas about themselves as well. 00:14:31.653 --> 00:14:36.593 Oh, sure. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. No, and I'm not, I'm not saying all of British media is like that. 00:14:36.653 --> 00:14:40.013 But I think there's more, there's more kind of, 00:14:40.513 --> 00:14:47.293 senior editors who see it as a scrap or a war or a fight or a battle as opposed 00:14:47.293 --> 00:14:52.813 to a sort of something where, you know, ethics is your primary concern. 00:14:52.813 --> 00:14:59.873 Yeah, and we obviously have a more tabloid culture as well, which I think does make a difference. 00:15:00.153 --> 00:15:02.973 Our tabloid culture is very different. Yeah. Yeah. 00:15:03.433 --> 00:15:07.113 Yeah. And that's primarily what I'm talking about. I'm not I'm not talking about 00:15:07.113 --> 00:15:13.133 every newspaper or media publication or media entity. 00:15:13.213 --> 00:15:15.613 It's it is that tabloid kind of. 00:15:16.313 --> 00:15:22.833 You know, anything for readers, anything for subscription numbers or and the 00:15:22.833 --> 00:15:24.113 U.S. has had that as well. 00:15:24.353 --> 00:15:27.533 It's not to say, you know, the New York Post is very similar. 00:15:28.811 --> 00:15:35.791 Obviously, it has Murdoch involved, but lots of U.S. papers in history have gone that route. 00:15:36.011 --> 00:15:41.031 It just, I don't think it's as traditional or large a part of American media 00:15:41.031 --> 00:15:43.291 as certainly now as it is in the U.S. 00:15:43.731 --> 00:15:48.671 And I guess some of this is that American proprietors are looking at the punchiness 00:15:48.671 --> 00:15:52.991 of British media and how some of that still keeps, has some relative success 00:15:52.991 --> 00:15:57.151 and is trying to bring a bit of that stateside, right? That's what a lot of this is about. Wow. 00:15:58.351 --> 00:16:03.011 That's what it feels like to me. I mean, it feels like just if you're the post, 00:16:03.171 --> 00:16:08.011 you're losing readers, losing revenue. 00:16:09.631 --> 00:16:10.811 Something has to change. 00:16:12.951 --> 00:16:18.531 And, you know, you need new blood and new people thinking in different ways. 00:16:18.591 --> 00:16:23.351 And maybe some of those ways are going to be unattractive to American journalists. 00:16:23.351 --> 00:16:27.891 The only question is how committed Jeff Bezos is to that goal. 00:16:30.111 --> 00:16:40.151 Yeah, this is the first real crisis I can see of Jeff Bezos's ownership of the Washington Post. 00:16:40.331 --> 00:16:44.671 He's generally been seen as quite a benign billionaire who's kind of perhaps 00:16:44.671 --> 00:16:49.471 the model for the future of media, where a very rich person puts their money in and steps away. 00:16:49.651 --> 00:16:52.731 This to me feels like the first real crisis of his time there. 00:16:54.387 --> 00:16:58.767 I would agree. It seemed as though, at least for the first little while, 00:16:58.947 --> 00:17:02.647 there was, you know, Jeff Bezos was rich. 00:17:02.747 --> 00:17:06.147 The paper was doing fairly well. He gave people a lot of latitude. 00:17:07.407 --> 00:17:14.087 They did experiment in a lot of ways with digital, focusing on digital and sort of traffic. 00:17:14.967 --> 00:17:17.747 And for a variety of reasons, that stopped working. 00:17:18.727 --> 00:17:23.067 And so I think that's what you see in the revenue numbers and that's what you 00:17:23.067 --> 00:17:23.987 see in the audience numbers. 00:17:24.387 --> 00:17:28.687 And so I think the definitely the honeymoon ended some time ago. 00:17:28.827 --> 00:17:37.667 And so now this paper is on the ropes and it's it's quite easy to to own and 00:17:37.667 --> 00:17:39.547 run something that's doing well. 00:17:39.827 --> 00:17:46.447 It's a lot harder to to try and bring it back from this type of situation. 00:17:46.607 --> 00:17:52.407 And so I'm not convinced that he has any expertise in this area. 00:17:52.407 --> 00:17:55.147 Yet and that's so the question in 00:17:55.147 --> 00:17:58.227 my mind is who is sort of calling the shots and 00:17:58.227 --> 00:18:02.387 who is giving him advice about what to do um do 00:18:02.387 --> 00:18:05.887 you have any insight to that who is calling the shots in the news george jeff 00:18:05.887 --> 00:18:10.827 bezos is not marching around the newsroom in the way murdoch used to do and 00:18:10.827 --> 00:18:16.107 i honestly don't know who is sort of who has his ear on this i don't know who 00:18:16.107 --> 00:18:21.467 is kind of you know Whose idea was it to bring in a couple of Brits to run the paper? 00:18:21.567 --> 00:18:24.107 Was that Jeff Bezos' idea? I doubt it. 00:18:25.287 --> 00:18:28.087 So, I mean, is he talking to Murdoch? That's not unreasonable. 00:18:30.990 --> 00:18:34.590 It's fascinating. And correct me if I remember, there was a bit of a controversy 00:18:34.590 --> 00:18:37.250 about the outgoing editor of The Washington Post. 00:18:38.530 --> 00:18:42.690 Was that another glitch in the sort of Bezos strategy, do you think? 00:18:42.870 --> 00:18:44.810 I honestly don't have much insight into that. 00:18:45.490 --> 00:18:48.050 I do feel as though there's more going on there. 00:18:49.790 --> 00:18:55.030 Just explain to listeners who the outgoing editor of The Washington Post is 00:18:55.030 --> 00:18:57.470 and so on. The outgoing editor was Sally Busby. 00:18:57.690 --> 00:19:04.110 The one thing I don't understand is why things happen so quickly. Right. 00:19:05.010 --> 00:19:10.490 You know, typically when editors change, it takes a little while and you have 00:19:10.490 --> 00:19:15.190 kind of statements on either side and the person has a thing that they're going 00:19:15.190 --> 00:19:17.550 to, sort of, you know, a soft landing. 00:19:17.550 --> 00:19:22.830 And even if it's an unfriendly departure, there's always sort of, 00:19:22.830 --> 00:19:27.510 you know, an ushering out process and a kind of, do you know what I mean? 00:19:27.530 --> 00:19:29.530 And there was none of that. 00:19:29.670 --> 00:19:36.550 So I don't know if something happened, something specific, whether there were, 00:19:37.270 --> 00:19:42.090 maybe it was goals that weren't reached, but it was very stark and it happened 00:19:42.090 --> 00:19:44.110 very suddenly, and that's unusual. 00:19:45.190 --> 00:19:50.850 Yes, it did seem. and my reading of it as I've read into this topic is that 00:19:50.850 --> 00:19:55.810 people in the Washington Post newsroom were or a number of them were loyal to her did like her. 00:19:57.961 --> 00:20:00.761 It definitely feels that way to me and so that's why i 00:20:00.761 --> 00:20:03.861 wonder she clearly crossed some 00:20:03.861 --> 00:20:07.181 sort of line or maybe there were things built 00:20:07.181 --> 00:20:10.161 into her contract that she failed to achieve but even 00:20:10.161 --> 00:20:13.581 so you you as i 00:20:13.581 --> 00:20:16.461 say you typically have some kind of you know 00:20:16.461 --> 00:20:19.601 um a slow process of 00:20:19.601 --> 00:20:22.961 someone moving on you don't just put out 00:20:22.961 --> 00:20:25.821 a press release and that person ceases to exist 00:20:25.821 --> 00:20:28.641 um so and to be honest i 00:20:28.641 --> 00:20:34.461 don't know what happened it's also odd because often um both proprietors and 00:20:34.461 --> 00:20:37.641 editors like to groom successors right and that doesn't seem to have happened 00:20:37.641 --> 00:20:42.081 either that goes to your point about it happening very quickly yeah and i think 00:20:42.081 --> 00:20:46.921 that's that's it speaks to the desperation here the sort of you You know, the sudden, 00:20:47.121 --> 00:20:49.601 we have to make a dramatic change, 00:20:50.141 --> 00:20:52.281 and it's critical. 00:20:52.481 --> 00:20:54.041 Like, we have to do it right now. 00:20:56.021 --> 00:21:01.521 Because there's none of the kind of things that you would normally see in this type of change. 00:21:02.001 --> 00:21:08.221 It's just one day, you know, one person is there, and the next day, someone else is. 00:21:09.321 --> 00:21:14.281 So where does this end? Obviously, these two gentlemen are in the kind of firing line. 00:21:14.321 --> 00:21:17.021 We don't know what will happen. We don't know if there'll be more investigations 00:21:17.021 --> 00:21:21.401 into the alleged issues around with them. 00:21:21.881 --> 00:21:25.701 We don't know if they'll just take right out the storm and take over The Washington Post. 00:21:27.321 --> 00:21:29.961 Where where do you see this ending? 00:21:30.041 --> 00:21:32.641 I mean, could we even have a situation where Sally Busby comes back? 00:21:34.641 --> 00:21:38.461 That seems unlikely to me, given how she departed. parted. 00:21:39.421 --> 00:21:46.081 But I think it's entirely possible that, you know, these two gentlemen could 00:21:46.081 --> 00:21:50.301 just, you know, deny everything and, or put it in a different context. 00:21:50.401 --> 00:21:53.561 And Jeff Bezos might decide, oh, this will all blow over. 00:21:55.001 --> 00:21:58.141 I'm not convinced that it will, though. I think 00:21:58.141 --> 00:22:02.061 there's a fundamental kind of contrast 00:22:02.061 --> 00:22:05.441 here between the way people thought of 00:22:05.441 --> 00:22:08.401 the the Washington Post and the way they will think of 00:22:08.401 --> 00:22:11.181 it if these two men take over the paper 00:22:11.181 --> 00:22:14.221 so the way people thought about what the post was doing 00:22:14.221 --> 00:22:20.081 what kind of paper it was what kind of reporting it was doing you know it's 00:22:20.081 --> 00:22:25.121 it's ethical standards that's going to change now maybe Jeff Bezos wants it 00:22:25.121 --> 00:22:30.141 to change maybe yeah I was going to say it's part of that not the plan that 00:22:30.141 --> 00:22:31.461 he wanted to shake It has to be. 00:22:32.121 --> 00:22:38.001 It has to be because so then perhaps he thinks, well, that's fine. 00:22:38.141 --> 00:22:40.041 I want to change the expectations. 00:22:40.741 --> 00:22:46.401 I'm happy with or not happy, but I'm I'm prepared to accept a little bit of 00:22:46.401 --> 00:22:51.921 controversy, provided that these two guys can shake things up and turn things 00:22:51.921 --> 00:22:53.801 around. Maybe he's prepared to accept that. 00:22:55.369 --> 00:23:00.729 Yeah, although, of course, as we talked about that kind of high minded bit of 00:23:00.729 --> 00:23:02.309 American media, you know, this is 00:23:02.309 --> 00:23:06.329 a publication that has democracy dies in darkness branding all around it. 00:23:06.349 --> 00:23:09.109 There does seem to be that conflict, doesn't there? 00:23:10.229 --> 00:23:14.249 Yeah, and I think he's he's definitely trying to turn the page. 00:23:14.549 --> 00:23:18.469 You know, the democracy dies in darkness thing maybe worked for a while, 00:23:18.549 --> 00:23:22.229 but now it's not working anymore. And so it's fine to have principles. 00:23:23.189 --> 00:23:27.749 But if you can't keep the lights on, then something has to change. 00:23:27.849 --> 00:23:34.209 And I'm sure on some level, whether he understands the intricacies of British 00:23:34.209 --> 00:23:39.709 media versus American media, he realizes that something dramatic had to happen. 00:23:39.749 --> 00:23:42.949 And maybe he's prepared to put up with a little collateral damage. 00:23:43.209 --> 00:23:47.909 It's going to be interesting to see because it's going to change the post fairly dramatically, I think. 00:23:47.909 --> 00:23:50.849 Yeah i'm just i'm also thinking of 00:23:50.849 --> 00:23:53.929 the you know newsroom respect right we've talked about how 00:23:53.929 --> 00:23:56.989 much the washington post is going in on the people that are meant 00:23:56.989 --> 00:23:59.849 to soon be leading it it's a huge story right at 00:23:59.849 --> 00:24:02.629 the front of the washington post website as you and i are talking that says 00:24:02.629 --> 00:24:05.569 incoming post editor tried tied to 00:24:05.569 --> 00:24:09.189 self-described thief who claimed role in his reporting you 00:24:09.189 --> 00:24:13.989 know this is a really really messy situation yeah 00:24:13.989 --> 00:24:17.009 and it's i think you have to think about i don't 00:24:17.009 --> 00:24:20.429 know whether Jeff Bezos has thought about this at all but how are 00:24:20.429 --> 00:24:23.209 the people who work there now going to 00:24:23.209 --> 00:24:25.889 work under that editor and that 00:24:25.889 --> 00:24:28.589 publisher yeah because it's one thing to 00:24:28.589 --> 00:24:32.949 say look you know this is your new coach or this is your new captain and you 00:24:32.949 --> 00:24:37.749 just do your job but journalists are like that at least a lot of them aren't 00:24:37.749 --> 00:24:43.389 so we'll have to see we've seen lots of instances recently of newsrooms being 00:24:43.389 --> 00:24:46.249 very robust and pushing back against all sorts of things. 00:24:47.492 --> 00:24:52.072 Yeah, even at the New York Times, where that has historically never happened. 00:24:53.932 --> 00:24:59.772 So that's a big question mark to me. How are the sort of rank and file going to respond? 00:25:01.712 --> 00:25:07.712 And will they just be glad they have jobs and kind of continue working? 00:25:07.852 --> 00:25:11.992 Or will there be an exodus? Probably a bit of both, right? Right. 00:25:13.052 --> 00:25:17.752 It's going to be fascinating to watch. My sort of final question to you is really, 00:25:17.812 --> 00:25:22.252 do you think this British invasion of American media is going to continue? 00:25:22.332 --> 00:25:29.932 Or is this incident, however it ends, going to sort of make people think more 00:25:29.932 --> 00:25:34.512 about hiring big name British editors, maybe even British reporters? 00:25:34.692 --> 00:25:39.092 Like, do you think that's going to stymie some of this trend of America? 00:25:39.092 --> 00:25:42.352 I honestly don't think it's going to change much. 00:25:43.892 --> 00:25:51.452 Those who know, you know, that this sort of thing happens in British media probably don't care. 00:25:51.832 --> 00:25:56.132 And there are a lot of, yeah, allegedly. Allegedly. And there are a lot of. 00:25:57.232 --> 00:26:02.612 Well, I mean, there are some instances. There are a lot of American media outlets 00:26:02.612 --> 00:26:07.912 and publications that are just as desperate, if not more desperate, than The Post. 00:26:07.912 --> 00:26:14.392 So if desperation is one of the key elements in this saga, 00:26:14.572 --> 00:26:20.192 which I think it is, then there will be lots of appetite to bring in new people, 00:26:20.272 --> 00:26:23.772 even if they have sort of ethical question marks in their history. 00:26:26.932 --> 00:26:30.452 Well it's going to be fascinating to watch matthew i'm so grateful that you 00:26:30.452 --> 00:26:33.652 could take the time to come on the show where can people keep up with all your 00:26:33.652 --> 00:26:36.192 great work which i have to say i was thrilled to have you on because i followed 00:26:36.192 --> 00:26:39.752 your work for years in all sorts of places so i was thrilled to have you on 00:26:39.752 --> 00:26:46.132 well thanks i'm happy to do it um so the columbia journalism review cjr.org, 00:26:46.692 --> 00:26:50.272 is my main thing and and i'm on pretty much 00:26:50.272 --> 00:26:53.012 every social platform if you care to reach out 00:26:53.012 --> 00:26:59.272 fantastic um i'm at charlotte a henry across social media obviously i hope you're 00:26:59.272 --> 00:27:04.152 already subscribed to the edition newsletter at newsletter.theedition.net a 00:27:04.152 --> 00:27:07.992 little subscription helps goes a long way so i hope you can support the show 00:27:07.992 --> 00:27:11.012 and the newsletter that way and i'll see you all soon. 00:27:11.760 --> 00:27:20.387 Music.