Washington Post CEO tried to kill story about himself. It wasn't the first time
npr.org
npr.org
Democracy though, that's purely legit.
https://www.lawdork.com/p/washington-post-bombshell-washingt...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
That the reporter themselves had already been given a quid pro quo request to drop a previous story is telling, though.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
There are specific protections enshrined in American labor law to protect employees from retaliation.
Business owners can't just do whatever they want.
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....
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.
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.