The Washington Post is taking note of its journalism again
NEW YORK—After a brutal year of headlines about The Washington Post, executive editor Matt Murray sounded almost relieved to be talking about journalism.
In an interview, he was touting “100 scoops in 100 days” about the Post’s coverage of the Trump administration’s first weeks.
What sounds like a publicist’s confection has truth behind it, with reporters putting their heads down and working, notably on stories involving the federal workforce and spending cuts.
Most stories about the Post in the past few months have been negative, including publisher Will Lewis’ botched reorganization that led to former executive editor Sally Buzbee’s resignation last June, owner Jeff Bezos asserting himself over the opinion section and defections among journalists worried about the outlet’s direction.
“Great stories and great scoops are always good to remind people—both externally and internally—that it’s all about the journalism at the end of the day,” Murray said.
Dan Diamond, Hannah Natanson, Carolyn Johnson and Lena Sun are among the reporters who have dug into specifics about Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)-inspired cuts and what they’ve meant for medical research and services for Social Security recipients.
Natanson, Rachel Siegel and Laura Meckler have explored the use of government data to go after undocumented immigrants.
‘Historic obligation’
Adam Taylor and John Hudson have dug into proposed cuts at the State Department. Maria Sacchetti and Artur Galocha showed how half of the people the White House reported as immigration enforcement arrests were already behind bars.
Jacob Bogage wrote about a Trump appointee asking the IRS to review an audit of conservative personality Mike Lindell.
It’s grunt work, developing sources and stories that build upon other stories, many involving federal workers—the industry that the city is built upon.
“The Post has an historic obligation—it’s right in our name, Washington—to write aggressively, truthfully, thoughtfully about the government and what’s happening there,” Murray said. “Obviously the Trump administration, whatever one thinks of them, has the most aggressive change program that we’ve seen in many administrations.”
The work breaking stories has been noticeable, said Margaret Sullivan, a former media columnist at The Post who still writes, teaches at Columbia University and runs the Craig Newmark Center for Journalism Ethics and Security there.
“I’ve been happy to see that,” she said. “The place has been through such a difficult time and it’s not due to the journalists there. It’s because of the ownership and management.”
Truth Social post
The Post hasn’t yet earned its own Truth Social post about its reporting since President Donald Trump’s return—the ultimate sign it has gotten under Trump’s skin—but the White House labeled one of its stories about health funding “fake news.”
Tulsi Gabbard, national intelligence director, cited a Post story about Israel and Iran among her reasons to seek out internal leakers.
The work has also calmed fears about whether owner Bezos’ newfound friendliness with Trump would impact news coverage.
Last fall, Bezos ordered a planned endorsement of Trump opponent Kamala Harris spiked, triggering an exodus of angry subscribers.
He was a prominently visible guest at Trump’s second inauguration and soon after said the Post’s opinion pages should focus primarily on personal liberties and the free market.
That change in direction led to the resignations of editorial page editor David Shipley and two long-time Post columnists, Ruth Marcus and Eugene Robinson.
Bezos’ actions with the opinion section have hurt the Post’s reputation when the country really needs it, and when its news coverage has been excellent, said Robert McCartney, a retired Post columnist. “Their DOGE coverage has been really good, as good as anybody’s,” he said.
