Washington Post CEO urges staffers who don't ‘feel aligned' with paper's new direction to leave
In a memo sent to staff Wednesday, Lewis touted the Post's 'reinvention journey' it has taken in recent months, including its 'reimagining' of its opinion pages that 'champion American values' among other company initiatives.
Advertisement
'The moment demands that we continue to rethink all aspects of our organization and business to maximize our impact,' Lewis wrote in the memo obtained by Fox News Digital. 'If we want to reconnect with our audience and continue to defend democracy, more changes at The Post will be necessary. And to succeed, we need to be united as a team with a strong belief and passion in where we are heading.'
'I understand and respect, however, that our chosen path is not for everyone,' he continued. 'That's exactly why we introduced the voluntary separation program. As we continue in this new direction, I want to ask those who do not feel aligned with the company's plan to reflect on that. The VSP is designed to support you in making this decision, give you the ability to weigh your options thoughtfully and with less concern about financial consequences. And if you think that it's time to move on to a new chapter, the VSP helps you take that next step with more security.'
'Regardless of what you decide, I want to thank all of you for everything you have done for this organization. If you choose to move away from The Post, thank you for all your contributions, and I truly wish you the best of luck. If you believe in our next chapter, I'm excited for the work ahead of us,' Lewis concluded the memo.
3 In a memo sent to staff Wednesday, Lewis touted the Post's 'reinvention journey' it has taken in recent months.
The Washington Post via Getty Images
Advertisement
A spokesperson for The Washington Post declined to comment.
Lewis' memo came less than two months after the paper launched its latest buyout program specifically targeting veteran staffers that would conclude at the end of July.
According to a VSP document previously viewed by Fox News Digital, nine months of base pay would be given to staffers employed for 10-15 years, 12 months of base pay for 15-20-year veterans, 15 months of base pay for 20-25-year veterans and 18 months for anyone who has worked at the Post for more than 25 years.
3 'If we want to reconnect with our audience and continue to defend democracy, more changes at The Post will be necessary,' Lewis said.
Christopher Sadowski
Advertisement
All of them would also receive 12 months of pay credit in their Separate Retirement Account (SRA).
The Post has suffered a dramatic decline in subscriptions, which was further fueled by multiple boycott campaigns against the 'Democracy Dies in Darkness' paper over decisions made by its billionaire owner Jeff Bezos.
The first was in October when Bezos halted the paper's endorsement of then-Vice President Kamala Harris just days before the November election.
3 Lewis' memo came less than two months after the paper launched its latest buyout program.
AP
Advertisement
The second was in February when Bezos announced his directive for the Post's editorial pages to promote 'personal liberties and free markets' and vowed not to publish pieces opposing those principles.
Both instances sparked a mass exodus of paid subscribers and several resignations, including opinion editor David Shipley, who opposed Bezos' new policy.
Last month, the Post tapped Adam O'Neal, formerly of The Economist and The Wall Street Journal, to lead the opinion pages.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Safety Insurance Group's (NASDAQ:SAFT) Shareholders Will Receive A Bigger Dividend Than Last Year
The board of Safety Insurance Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:SAFT) has announced that it will be paying its dividend of $0.92 on the 15th of September, an increased payment from last year's comparable dividend. This will take the dividend yield to an attractive 5.2%, providing a nice boost to shareholder returns. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Safety Insurance Group's Projected Earnings Seem Likely To Cover Future Distributions While it is great to have a strong dividend yield, we should also consider whether the payment is sustainable. Prior to this announcement, Safety Insurance Group's dividend was comfortably covered by both cash flow and earnings. This indicates that quite a large proportion of earnings is being invested back into the business. Over the next year, EPS could expand by 0.6% if recent trends continue. If the dividend continues on this path, the payout ratio could be 66% by next year, which we think can be pretty sustainable going forward. Check out our latest analysis for Safety Insurance Group Safety Insurance Group Has A Solid Track Record The company has an extended history of paying stable dividends. The annual payment during the last 10 years was $2.80 in 2015, and the most recent fiscal year payment was $3.68. This works out to be a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 2.8% a year over that time. Dividends have grown relatively slowly, which is not great, but some investors may value the relative consistency of the dividend. The Dividend's Growth Prospects Are Limited Investors could be attracted to the stock based on the quality of its payment history. Although it's important to note that Safety Insurance Group's earnings per share has basically not grown from where it was five years ago, which could erode the purchasing power of the dividend over time. Growth of 0.6% per annum is not particularly high, which might explain why the company is paying out a higher proportion of earnings. This isn't necessarily bad, but we wouldn't expect rapid dividend growth in the future. Safety Insurance Group Looks Like A Great Dividend Stock In summary, it is always positive to see the dividend being increased, and we are particularly pleased with its overall sustainability. The company is easily earning enough to cover its dividend payments and it is great to see that these earnings are being translated into cash flow. All of these factors considered, we think this has solid potential as a dividend stock. Investors generally tend to favour companies with a consistent, stable dividend policy as opposed to those operating an irregular one. Meanwhile, despite the importance of dividend payments, they are not the only factors our readers should know when assessing a company. For example, we've picked out 1 warning sign for Safety Insurance Group that investors should know about before committing capital to this stock. If you are a dividend investor, you might also want to look at our curated list of high yield dividend stocks. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Sign in to access your portfolio
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's cartel order revives ‘bitter' memories in Latin America
But up and down much of Latin America, any whisper of reviving such actions could also unleash a chain reaction resulting in a surge in anti-American sentiment. The news of Trump's order has already intensified a wariness against intervention from abroad, even in Ecuador and other countries plagued by violent drug wars in recent years. 'I'm a right-wing conservative, so I want armed citizens and the military actually shooting,' said Patricio Endara, 46, a businessperson in Quito, the Ecuadorian capital. 'But I wouldn't agree with having foreign soldiers in Ecuador.' Advertisement That skepticism draws from the bitter memories left by the long record of US military interventions in the region, whether through direct or indirect action, as during Colombia's long internal war. 'Those are formulas that have shown, to the point of exhaustion, their failure,' Iván Cepeda, a Colombian senator, said in an interview. These kinds of interventions 'inflict immense damage,' said Fernando González Davidson, a Guatemalan scholar, pointing to how such actions often strove for regime change. 'The U.S. leaves power in the hands of a corrupt and criminal class aligned with its own interests.' Advertisement A United States-backed coup in 1954 in Guatemala ousted a democratically elected leader over concerns that a land reform project threatened United Fruit Co., a powerful American corporation with large tracts of land there. In the decades that followed, that Guatemalan coup became a rallying cry across the region by exposing US Cold War policy as a tool for protecting US interests over democratic principles and national sovereignty. Long before the US military's involvement in the region became so contentious, President James Monroe's assertion in 1823 that the United States could use its military in Latin America had more bark than bite, historians say. But in the 1840s, President James K. Polk invoked the doctrine to justify the Mexican-American War, which produced the United States conquest of Mexican lands now comprising states such as California, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. That humiliating outcome, and other US military interventions in Mexico in the 1910s, profoundly shaped Mexico's political identity, fostering a strong sense of nationalism that is often in opposition to the United States. President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico tapped into such sentiment Friday when she rejected the use of US military forces in her country. She made it explicitly clear that Mexico has ruled out any kind of 'invasion.' 'Unilateral US military action inside Mexico would be disastrous for bilateral cooperation on issues like migration and security,' said Arturo Santa-Cruz, an expert on US-Mexico relations at the University of Guadalajara. Advertisement Territorial expansion came into play again during the Spanish-American War in 1898, solidifying the United States' emergence as a global power when it took Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines from Spain. President Theodore Roosevelt followed in 1903 by sending warships to support a revolt by separatists in Colombia. They formed Panama and gave the United States control over the Canal Zone, which Panama fully regained only in 1999. Roosevelt created his own corollary to the Monroe Doctrine the next year, claiming that the United States should exert 'police power' in the Americas when it found cases of flagrant 'wrongdoing.' This pivot turbocharged US interventions, and protecting American property often was the justification. In Cuba alone, US forces intervened on three occasions from 1906 to 1922. During the Cold War, the United States found new ways to intervene. This included supporting coups that ousted democratically elected leaders in Guatemala, Brazil, and Chile. US forces also kept intervening with boots on the ground in places including the Dominican Republic and Grenada, driven by concerns about communists in these countries. So many interventions had the effect of unifying much of Latin America around the issue of sovereignty. Such positioning was on display when Latin American countries recently closed ranks to oppose Trump's threats to regain the Panama Canal. 'There's been an iron will among Latin Americans to define one of their core values as national sovereignty and nonintervention,' said Alan McPherson, a historian at Temple University in Philadelphia. Even as the Cold War was easing in 1989, the United States once again intervened in Panama to depose its de facto leader, Manuel Noriega, who was wanted by US authorities on drug trafficking charges. Advertisement For the Americans, it was 'Operation Just Cause,' said Efraín Guerrero, a community leader who gives walking tours in Panama City to keep alive the memory of the US invasion. 'But for us, it became 'Forgetting Forbidden,' because we have to remember all those who died.' That intervention could provide a template for a similar action in a country like Venezuela, where the United States has doubled a reward, to $50 million, for information leading to the arrest of its leader, Nicolás Maduro, whom US officials accuse of links to gangs such as Tren de Aragua and the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico. Since the news of Trump's move appeared Friday, some critics of the Venezuelan regime have called for the US military to do just that, asking the US president to order US troops to go after Maduro, just as they targeted Panama's president in 1989. 'Let's hope he does it,' said a Venezuelan woman in the city of Maracaibo, who asked that her name not appear for fear of Maduro. 'This is what we have been waiting for, for years -- for Maduro to leave or for Trump to take him. We Venezuelans would happily give him away.' 'This move or threat by the Trump administration,' said Christopher Sabatini, a Latin America expert at the London-based Chatham House, 'is going to really touch that historic and deeply felt popular nerve' about US interventions in Latin America. However, he said, throughout history there was also, often, 'a particular sort of partisan faction that was lobbying the United States to get involved.' This article originally appeared in Advertisement
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
UN nuclear watchdog official to visit Iran
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attends the 17th annual BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on July 7, 2025. | Eraldo Peres/AP By Associated Press 08/10/2025 05:00 PM EDT TEHRAN — The deputy head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog will visit Iran in a bid to rekindle soured ties, the Islamic Republic's foreign minister said Sunday. There will be no inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities during the visit by the International Atomic Energy Agency scheduled for Monday, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said. The visit would be the first following Israel and Iran's 12-day war in June, when some of its key nuclear facilities were struck; some of those raids were conducted by the United States. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on July 3 ordered the country to suspend its cooperation with the IAEA, after American and Israeli airstrikes hit its most-important nuclear facilities. The decision will likely further limit inspectors' ability to track Tehran's program that had been enriching uranium to near weapons-grade levels.
