Murray’s WaPo Moment

When Matt Murray became executive editor of The Washington Post last year, he stepped into one of the most turbulent moments in the paper’s storied history, with staff morale in the basement, readers canceling their subscriptions in droves to protest meddling by Jeff Bezos, and talent fleeing in an unprecedented exodus—all while leadership contends with the assault on the press from Donald Trump and his administration.

At the same time, Murray has done his best to steady the ship, while also pushing ahead with a sweeping newsroom overhaul: reorganizing desks, installing new top editors, and steering coverage that’s produced more than 250 exclusives this year, including a recent run of Pentagon scoops.

In a rare conversation with Status, Murray addressed the staff exodus, Bezos’ engagement, publisher Will Lewis’ polarizing leadership, and the uphill task of restoring trust and relevance to a newsroom still struggling to find its footing.

You inherited a newsroom in distress when you took the reins last year. A lot of the underlying reasons for the instability are out of your control. But what have you been doing to stabilize the ship?

You’re right—distress had built up over a long time, and there was a lot to do. Change is hard to implement and rather disruptive. But we’ve made great progress on an ambitious plan to reinvent The Post as the most trusted, accurate news organization in the world, with riveting and relevant information for all Americans. We’ve sharpened our focus on digital growth, on- and off-platform. We're diversifying the content mix and formats, emphasizing impactful, distinctive stories—and getting a lot of scoops. We’re beefing up how we use audience data and rethinking areas like video. We’ve assembled a powerful masthead and elevated a new generation of news leaders. We’re building a culture of candor, measurement and experimentation. There is plenty still to do. It's striking how often people tell me what great work we’re doing in a tone that suggests it’s somehow in spite of where we are—and I have to say, no, that actually is where we are.

I'm curious: How would you describe the state of affairs at The Post today?

Still a work in progress but better than people on the outside might think. Look, some unease is natural at a company that has been lagging for some time and is midstream on change, especially at a time of upheaval in our industry. The news cycle is intense. The scale of the job is intimidating. But I’m so proud of our talented and dedicated staff doing so much impactful work and challenging themselves to build our future.

There has been an astonishing exodus of talent from The WaPo since the start of the year. Were you disappointed so many people chose to leave? And how has that impacted the newsroom?

On some level I'm always disappointed when people leave wherever I work. But I’ve lived through these cycles before and you have to expect it and endure them—people get poached, or they’re tired, or they don’t like the actual or perceived direction of travel. Almost always, even with talented people, if that’s how they feel, they should go. But the departures also had a galvanizing effect. Veterans who had felt held back are seizing new opportunities. New hires have brought a wider perspective. Collaboration and the use of data have improved. This energy is showing up in our coverage. And I can tell you—there is no shortage of ambitious people who want to work at The Post, who understand change is endemic in our business right now and who see opportunity here.

We reported that just before the Labor Day weekend, you convened in Miami with owner Jeff Bezos. Anything from that meeting that you can disclose? What's your working relationship like with Bezos?

Our conversations are private, but I can say—with no hyperbole—that Jeff is quite charged up about the work we’re doing and where he sees us going, and very engaged at a high level in pushing us to think bigger about growth. He’s more ambitious for The Post than anyone.

I need to also ask about Will Lewis. Suffice to say, we've been critical of his run as chief executive and publisher—and I think it's fair to say, there aren't many fans of his that one encounters in the wild. Is everyone just getting Will wrong?

I’ve known Will for a long time. I watched him turn around Dow Jones from a very dark place and set it on the growth path it still follows today. Here he walked into a tough situation at a time of rapid change. Sometimes people seem to think there is some magic switch that can fix everything while the rest of us continue as we have. But Will is provoking all of us to change, and that is a tall order. He is smart and determined, incredibly loyal, passionate about promoting and defending powerful, ethical journalism—he has been raving about our Pentagon coverage all week—but properly realistic about our cultural issues and the urgent need to reinvent and be relevant. He’s taken a lot of flack, based on a lot of loose talk and misinformed speculation, and shown a great deal of fortitude in the teeth of that. Ultimately, he knows, as we all do, that we will be measured by quality and growth.

There are quite a few former WaPo readers out there that simply feel they can no longer trust the newspaper, given some of the meddling by Bezos, among other things. What would you tell these readers, many whom I'm sure are in the Status audience?

First, I would emphasize there is zero “meddling" from Jeff on the news report. Full stop.

Second, our trust problem has built up over a long period of time. It’s an industry-wide issue that we must prioritize. It will take time to turn around. I like to quote a line from our longtime political writer Dan Balz, who recently retired: “Don’t read about The Washington Post. Read The Washington Post.” Judge us by the work. We are emphasizing a news report built on reporting, with fair and proper context, voices from all sides and greater transparency– without sacrificing one ounce of toughness or accountability. We have broken a lot of big stories this year. We are seeking new ways to add transparency, with features like From the Source, in which key sources can comment on published articles. We’ve hired a masthead-level Standards editor to improve our rigor and training. We have work to do, but I’m encouraged by our direction.

Pivoting to general industry matters, we are seeing newsrooms implement A.I. more and more. Recently, we reported that Business Insider will now permit their staff to write first drafts with ChatGPT. What do you make of that and does The WaPo have any plans to use A.I. in the creative process, outside using it as a summarizing tool?

A.I. is clearly having profound effects on every stage of newsgathering, from reporting through the user experience. We are experimenting with new products and looking at ways it can boost our reporting and processes, while watching how users do and don’t adapt to the technology. But the core proposition of great journalism will always be human-driven reporting, perspective and insight that A.I. can't replace. So, the way we think about A.I is: How can these new tools help us do that job better?

Your former shop, The WSJ, has generated a lot of attention over the last year. Some proponents of Emma Tucker say she has sharpened the newspaper’s editorial, while her critics are, well, critical of her run atop the Rupert Murdoch-owned broadsheet. Can you share with us how you view things?

Emma is a tough, talented editor and The Journal has produced some enviably excellent work. I will always be rooting for them—except when The Post is competing on a story. But my head and heart are in this newsroom now, and I don’t feel qualified to offer a deep, informed view of things there—nor should I.

We're seeing an unprecedented assault on the free press (at least, in modern times). Is this the new norm? And do you worry that the bedrock principle of free speech in this country is starting to erode before our eyes? Or do you have a more optimistic view?

I’m an absolutist on free speech. I have grave concerns about the actions and attempts to curb or intimidate speech by the administration as well as signs of self-censorship in our industry. This is also a worldwide trend, and it cuts across the political spectrum. What most dispirits me are what seem to be growing numbers of Americans who don’t recognize how precious and precarious free speech is—however obnoxious or disagreeable it might seem—and what a unique strength it is for this country. It’s important right now that we and others calmly and coolly continue to exercise our constitutional rights to report and write as we see fit, without interference, to inform the public, to shed insight on leaders and power, to explain the world without fear or favor. All of us have a say in the future of free speech, and we help protect it by practicing it.

In this week’s episode: We welcomes Status’ new media correspondent Natalie Korach and discuss the escalating assault on the press—including my testimony at a Senate “spotlight hearing,” pressure from Brendan Carr and Pete Hegseth, and unprovoked attacks on reporters by masked ICE agents. Then, we turn to Riyadh, where Dave Chappelle, Kevin Hart, and Bill Burr are pocketing huge checks at a Saudi-backed comedy festival despite censorship and the regime’s human rights record. Finally, we unpack Fox News’ spin on the government shutdown.

You can watch on YouTube—or listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Data via Box Office Mojo]