Is Marty Baron the Man to Fix The Washington Post?

The paper’s new executive editor avoids new-media buzzwords, abhors self-promotion, and espouses traditional journalistic values. In a changing world where Web is swiftly displacing print, is that what The Post needs?

Washington Post executive editor Martin Baron. 
National Journal
Chris Frates
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Chris Frates
May 23, 2013, 4:15 p.m.

Wash­ing­ton, meet Mar­tin Bar­on, the new ex­ec­ut­ive ed­it­or of The Wash­ing­ton Post, who ar­rived this year car­ry­ing sev­en Pulitzers and a sack full of ac­col­ades. He wants to find out all about you. But make no mis­take, he is not so pleased for you to meet him.

Bar­on is al­most a kind of D.C. an­ti­mat­ter. He does not talk about him­self. He does not dis­cuss much of him­self, his per­son­al life or, more im­port­ant, how he runs The Post, still the most icon­ic me­dia fran­chise in town, and one be­set by all the plagues that have vis­ited news­pa­pers across the coun­try. In a splintered in­dustry where just about every­one works fe­ver­ishly to de­vel­op his own brand, Marty Bar­on is stub­bornly retro. A com­pany man.

He’s the con­sum­mate news­man, a com­pli­ment that has long been re­served for in­dustry lifers who care more about the makeup of Page 1 than the fu­ture of news­pa­pers. But can The Post, whose flag­ging for­tunes in­clude tum­bling rev­en­ue, cir­cu­la­tion, and staff ranks, still af­ford that kind of lux­ury? If Bar­on has a vis­ion for the pa­per’s fu­ture — and al­most cer­tainly he had to of­fer one to Pub­lish­er Kath­ar­ine Wey­mouth to be handed the helm — he’s loath to dis­cuss it. He’ll talk about his journ­al­ist­ic ac­com­plish­ments, the mech­an­ics of a good story. But as for fix­ing The Wash­ing­ton Post, he’s not about to ad­mit that it’s even ne­ces­sary.

Talk­ing journ­al­ism or polit­ics with Bar­on of­ten feels like re­count­ing a well-stocked résumé. The ed­it­or who has pulled back the cur­tain on some of Amer­ica’s most im­port­ant in­sti­tu­tions won’t of­fer so much as a glimpse be­hind his own. Take the Bo­ston Mara­thon bomb­ings. When asked to send along stor­ies he thought ex­em­pli­fied his ap­proach, Bar­on re­spon­ded quickly, of­fer­ing ex­ample after ex­ample of the scoops and en­ter­prise pieces he said set The Post apart from the com­pet­i­tion on an in­tensely covered na­tion­al story. The pa­per, for ex­ample, broke the news that the CIA pushed to have one of the bombers placed on a coun­terter­ror­ism watch list more than a year be­fore the at­tacks and was the first to re­port that the oth­er sus­pect was un­armed when po­lice opened fire on him.

“We were in front of every­one with ma­jor scoops. That’s job one: Be com­pet­it­ive, break news. And we did, fre­quently. Next, we need quick and su­per­i­or en­ter­prise on a story like the bomb­ings. Here are three par­tic­u­larly ex­cel­lent pieces of that sort,” Bar­on wrote in an e-mail, list­ing a tick-tock of the man­hunt, a re­con­struc­tion of the in­vest­ig­a­tion, and a por­trait of the bomb­ing sus­pects’ fam­ily.

“They demon­strate our abil­ity to quickly mar­shal the full re­sources of the or­gan­iz­a­tion on stor­ies that prom­ise to be truly dis­tinct,” he con­tin­ued. “We looked for the best op­por­tun­it­ies to stand out from the me­dia crowd, and then we de­livered re­peatedly.”

Bar­on’s e-mails were re­min­is­cent of de­scrip­tions that ac­com­pany con­test entries, filled with swag­ger and pride. But a few days later, when Bar­on sat for cof­fee with Na­tion­al Journ­al to dis­cuss the cov­er­age, he was un­will­ing to talk about the ac­tion be­hind the scenes, the very thing he had pushed his re­port­ers to un­cov­er in their bomb­ings’ re­port­ing. The long­time Bo­ston Globe ed­it­or, 58, provided no in­sight in­to how his ex­per­i­ence with the re­gion, no doubt an im­meas­ur­able as­set in the frantic days that fol­lowed the at­tack, helped shape the ef­fort.

“I’m not really drawn to telling those stor­ies,” Bar­on said. “I view these news­rooms as a col­lab­or­at­ive en­ter­prise, and a lot of people make con­tri­bu­tions, and not everything re­volves around me.”

“What did you make hap­pen?”

“See, that’s what I don’t want to talk about.”

“You can’t tell me any­thing about what you did?”

“That’s your chal­lenge,” he replied.

In Marty’s world, journ­al­ism is still prac­ticed more as a sac­red ritu­al than as a Pez dis­penser for the BuzzFeed-addled crowd. He’s hu­man Rital­in. “The guy has the single best news judg­ment I have ever seen of any ed­it­or in my life. His news judg­ment is ex­traordin­ary, and I’m not just say­ing that be­cause I used to work for the guy,” said Bri­an Mc­Grory, who suc­ceeded Bar­on as The Globe’s ed­it­or. “It’s al­most like his brain is a news com­puter.”

Find­ing col­leagues like Mc­Grory to praise Bar­on is not hard. They routinely de­scribe him as bril­liant and as one of the best ed­it­ors in the coun­try. But The Post isn’t just an­oth­er metro daily in need of a turn­around. It’s an in­sti­tu­tion that not long ago boas­ted of an un­break­able grip on the private, pub­lic, and polit­ic­al pulse of Amer­ica’s cap­it­al. Wheth­er due to di­min­ished re­sources, in­creased com­pet­i­tion, or an im­pre­cise fo­cus, it has lost that edge, long­time ob­serv­ers say. This view is es­pe­cially strong among the Wash­ing­ton con­sult­ing class that makes a luc­rat­ive liv­ing help­ing cli­ents lever­age me­dia ex­pos­ure in­to max­im­um in­flu­ence.

“From a strategy per­spect­ive of plan­ning where we go, they’re not even in our top 10,” a Wash­ing­ton pub­lic-af­fairs con­sult­ant said of the pa­per. In fact, the con­sult­ant hadn’t even heard of Bar­on.

A journ­al­ist-turned-top-me­dia-strategist put it this way: “Our cli­ents are most in­ter­ested in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journ­al be­cause, in their view, The Post has lost a step or two. The cov­er­age is just not as in-depth and in­form­at­ive.”

The strategist con­tin­ued, “It speaks to a much broad­er is­sue. Is The Wash­ing­ton Post still rel­ev­ant in today’s world of journ­al­ism? And I think that ques­tion is still an open ques­tion.”

Bar­on nat­ur­ally dis­agrees — and sees his news­pa­per back­ground as a strength, one that has been ad­ap­ted to the di­git­al fu­ture.

“If I didn’t think I could do the job, I wouldn’t have taken the job,” he said. Bar­on poin­ted to The Globe’s on­line cov­er­age of the mara­thon bomb­ings. “They did a really ter­rif­ic job. You will see that it was fully webby in every way,” he said, adding that most of the pre­par­a­tion for that re­sponse happened un­der his 11-year watch. He then ticked off the de­liv­er­ables: a half-dozen Pulitzers, six Ed­ward R. Mur­row awards, and nine loc­al Emmys.

“You tell me, is that an achieve­ment or not? People can judge them­selves. I don’t hap­pen to think that com­ing out of a tra­di­tion­al news­pa­per back­ground is a de­fect. I think you have to re­cog­nize how the busi­ness has changed,” he said. “I still be­lieve that the heart of what we do has to be good journ­al­ism.”

And what about brand­ing, Marty? What about driv­ing clicks? What about, for want of a bet­ter word, buzz?

“I think it’s pos­sible to cre­ate buzz with news,” he replied flatly.

THE DUDE COMES TO WORK

Just as the Bo­ston Mara­thon bomb­ings oc­curred as Bar­on was set­tling in at The Post, he was only a few months in­to his ten­ure as Globe ed­it­or when two air­liners flew out of Lo­gan In­ter­na­tion­al Air­port on a Tues­day morn­ing and crashed in­to the World Trade Cen­ter’s twin towers. Shortly after, he ordered up a nar­rat­ive of how the lives of the people on Flight 11 and in the Trade Cen­ter’s north tower came to­geth­er that day. It was a massive lift to pull to­geth­er such a com­plic­ated story in only a few days, re­called Greg Moore, who worked as Bar­on’s man­aging ed­it­or at The Globe be­fore jet­ting west to lead The Den­ver Post.

“I was like, “˜For Sunday?’ And he was like, “˜Yeah, for Sunday.’ And we did it, and it was really, really good,” Moore said. “He dares people to be great.” It was a mod­el he would fol­low again when hun­dreds were in­jured at the mara­thon site a dozen years later.

“Marty used to have a say­ing that you’re either break­ing news or you’re break­ing ground,” Moore said. “And break­ing ground means that you’re help­ing people un­der­stand bet­ter what’s go­ing on around them.”

Bar­on had come to Bo­ston after a short stint as ed­it­or of The Miami Her­ald in his home state of Flor­ida, fol­low­ing stops at the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times. It was a ca­reer that hadn’t, not­ably, in­volved any time in D.C. At The Her­ald, Bar­on over­saw the cov­er­age of the Elián González con­tro­versy, which won a Pulitzer, and the 2000 Flor­ida vote re­count. The Her­ald was the first to or­gan­ize an in­de­pend­ent re­count, which de­term­ined that, un­der most scen­ari­os, George W. Bush would have still won Flor­ida and, with it, the pres­id­ency.

At The Globe, it swiftly be­came clear that Bar­on lived for the job. As Moore put it, “The dude comes to work. He comes to work with his lunch buck­et, and he’s not jok­ing around.”

The flip side is an ed­it­or known as a re­lent­less, single-minded, ex­act­ing, and de­mand­ing boss. A former Globe em­ploy­ee re­called one de­scrip­tion of Bar­on’s re­gime that cir­cu­lated the news­room: “The joy­less pur­suit of journ­al­ist­ic ex­cel­lence.” Former em­ploy­ees de­scribe him as “aloof,” “brittle” and a “hard-ass” — and those are the people who like him. He was also de­term­ined to keep his private life sep­ar­ate from the news­room, mak­ing him something of an out­sider. Ann Scales, who worked as Bar­on’s right hand in Bo­ston, put it this way: “Marty’s brand is his tough­ness and skill as an ed­it­or. That’s what the world sees, be­cause that’s what he presents. The rest of it is nobody’s damn busi­ness.”

Two years after his ar­rival, The Globe won a Pulitzer for ex­pos­ing the Ro­man Cath­ol­ic Church’s his­tory of pro­tect­ing pe­do­phile priests — a series that Bar­on is per­haps best known for. (He’ll be por­trayed in a movie ver­sion of the story that’s in the works.) And in Mas­sachu­setts, Bar­on be­came fa­mil­i­ar with a cut­throat polit­ic­al scene that pro­duced a dis­pro­por­tion­ate num­ber of na­tion­al can­did­ates. In 2003, The Globe pro­duced what is re­membered as the defin­it­ive pro­files of home-state Sen. John Kerry. The series was must read­ing for every na­tion­al re­port­er cov­er­ing Kerry’s Demo­crat­ic pres­id­en­tial cam­paign.

“Here’s a guy who had been in of­fice for many, many years. People, I think, in the Globe news­room felt they knew everything there was to know about him, giv­en his years in of­fice,” Bar­on said. “But I felt that if he was go­ing to be a pres­id­en­tial [can­did­ate], I wanted to make sure that we as an or­gan­iz­a­tion were not em­bar­rassed by someone else com­ing up with something about John Kerry that we ourselves had not dis­covered first,” he said. “We had to be the ref­er­ence for every­body else. The way I put it is, I didn’t want any crumbs left on the table for any­body else to pick up.”

Every­where Kerry cam­paigned in 2004, a Globe re­port­er was by his side. In 2007, the pa­per did a sim­il­ar sev­en-part series on former Mas­sachu­setts Gov. Mitt Rom­ney dur­ing his un­suc­cess­ful bid to win the Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial nom­in­a­tion. And in 2012, two Globe re­port­ers pub­lished a bio­graphy of Rom­ney that be­came a ref­er­ence guide for polit­ic­al re­port­ers every­where.

Bar­on also brought his ex­haust­ive ap­proach to statewide races. In the 2002 gov­ernor’s race, which Rom­ney would go on to win, Bar­on told his re­port­ers, “We have to de­vote at least as many column inches pro­fil­ing the can­did­ates as we did on the guys who might buy the Red Sox,” said Rick Klein, a former Globe re­port­er who now works as ABC News’ polit­ic­al dir­ect­or.

Al­though Bar­on un­der­stood the need for com­pre­hens­ive polit­ic­al cov­er­age, he showed little in­terest in mov­ing in the same circles as the con­sult­ants and can­did­ates the pa­per covered. “I hon­estly don’t think he was big on the so­cial scene in Bo­ston, which is prob­ably atyp­ic­al for someone in that job. Polit­ics is a blood sport and so­cial sport in Mas­sachu­setts, and I don’t think he did that dur­ing his ten­ure,” said Jim Man­ley, a long­time aide to the late Sen. Ed­ward Kennedy, D-Mass.

In­stead, Bar­on stayed at arm’s length. His re­la­tion­ships with Bay State pols con­sisted of lunches and phone calls, not week­ends on the Cape. He was more Len Downie than Ben Bradlee. Globe ed­it­or Mc­Grory likened it to Bar­on’s lack of in­terest in pro­fes­sion­al sports. When Bar­on landed in sports-crazy Bo­ston, “Marty didn’t know a foot­ball from a bas­ket­ball. He looked at our love of the Red Sox like we were liv­ing on an­oth­er plan­et, but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t catch on to why we love the Red Sox,” Mc­Grory said, not­ing that Bar­on would catch an oc­ca­sion­al game at Fen­way and spend nine in­nings bur­ied in his smart­phone.

“He’s not a polit­ic­al an­im­al in any sense of the word, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t ap­pre­ci­ate what polit­ics are. It just means he’s not go­ing to im­merse him­self in that world,” Mc­Grory said. “I think it pro­duces ex­traordin­ary journ­al­ism, be­cause in many ways Marty can ex­ist above the fray.” (And in­deed in per­son, Bar­on is no glad-hand­ing show­man. He doesn’t flat­ter. He speaks in a re­strained mono­tone that, while nev­er im­pol­ite, seems to dis­guise an an­noy­ance with hav­ing to an­swer ques­tions about his lead­er­ship.)

He saw no need to gen­u­flect be­fore the loc­al es­tab­lish­ment. Early in Bar­on’s ten­ure, then-Rep. Barney Frank for­war­ded a let­ter to Bar­on that he re­ceived from a con­stitu­ent com­plain­ing that The Globe only covered the Mas­sachu­setts Demo­crat when it per­tained to gay is­sues, ig­nor­ing his views on oth­er im­port­ant na­tion­al de­bates. So Bar­on went through the pa­per’s archives and found ex­amples of stor­ies that covered Frank’s work in fin­an­cial ser­vices, hous­ing, and oth­er areas, prin­ted them, and sent them to Frank with a note ur­ging the law­maker to catch up on his read­ing.

The al­ways witty and can­tan­ker­ous Frank wrote back, “If there was a Pulitzer Prize for de­fens­ive­ness, you would win hands down.” In Frank’s telling, Bar­on sent back two stor­ies over two years that didn’t deal with gay is­sues. “It was very sketchy,” he said in an in­ter­view. 

Frank, now re­tired, said he doesn’t know much about Bar­on per­son­ally, hav­ing had lunch with him just once over the years. He said he found The Globe’s cov­er­age of him­self in­ad­equate and overly neg­at­ive. “I did find him ex­cess­ively de­fens­ive … to cri­ti­cism and un­will­ing to ac­know­ledge any­thing that they might not have done well. I would say that opin­ion was gen­er­ally shared by oth­er mem­bers of the con­gres­sion­al del­eg­a­tion,” Frank said. “He re­acted to any dis­agree­ment with the pa­per as if he were Peter Zenger.”

NUM­BERS DON’T LIE

Peter Zenger’s me­di­um held domin­ion for cen­tur­ies, but print now finds it­self on the en­dangered list, and ail­ing news­pa­pers are in vari­ous stages of triage. The Post’s chal­lenge to hold onto the next gen­er­a­tion of read­ers is con­sid­er­able. For dec­ades, it ruled su­preme as a prom­in­ent source of polit­ic­al cov­er­age, but its on­line space has been crowded by Politico, BuzzFeed, The Huff­ing­ton Post, Talk­ing Points Memo, The Daily Caller, and Real­Clear­Polit­ics — not to men­tion “old me­dia” such as The New York Times. The Post, some ar­gue, owns less mind share in Wash­ing­ton now than at any time since be­fore its Wa­ter­gate glory days. The pa­per, it seems, has lost its home-field ad­vant­age.

Peter Baker, a former Postie turned New York Times re­port­er, said re­cently of his alma ma­ter, “There’s a per­cep­tion it’s not the pa­per it was.” New York Times me­dia crit­ic Dav­id Carr wrote that The Post “has al­lowed its fran­chise on polit­ic­al cov­er­age to dis­perse to oth­er news out­lets, many on­line.”

It’s a view that also holds in­side the news­room. “The no­tion that the as­cen­sion, es­pe­cially of Politico but also of oth­ers, hasn’t chal­lenged The Post’s foothold is im­possible to ar­gue. It’s against grav­ity,” said Post me­dia re­port­er Erik Wemple, not­ing that all leg­acy me­dia out­lets have watched the Web chal­lenge their pree­m­in­ence.

Bar­on, ap­par­ently, doesn’t sub­scribe to New­ton’s the­ory. “I dis­agree with the premise,” he said. “I think we do have a polit­ic­al ad­vant­age.”

He con­tin­ued, “Be­cause of the Web, we have more com­pet­i­tion than ever be­fore, and that’s fine. We don’t have a prob­lem with com­pet­i­tion; it keeps us sharp. But that doesn’t mean that it’s eaten away at our cov­er­age. It hasn’t eaten away at our cov­er­age. Our cov­er­age still re­mains strong, and I would say much stronger than those com­pet­it­ors.”

Bar­on re­jec­ted Carr’s cri­ti­cism as a com­pet­it­or’s “glib re­mark.”

“We haven’t al­lowed any­thing to dis­perse to any­body else. This or­gan­iz­a­tion main­tains an in­cred­ibly strong polit­ic­al team. It’s go­ing to re­main strong, and, frankly, Dav­id Carr is not the au­thor­ity on the sub­ject. Who’s the au­thor­ity on the sub­ject? The read­ers are the au­thor­ity.”

But the num­bers don’t add up in Bar­on’s fa­vor. Of the top 25 daily pa­pers in the coun­try, The Post saw some of the biggest cir­cu­la­tion de­clines, re­gis­ter­ing a drop of 6.5 per­cent in av­er­age print and di­git­al cir­cu­la­tion over the last year, ac­cord­ing to the Al­li­ance for Audited Me­dia’s most re­cent re­port. In 2012, rev­en­ue from The Post’s news­pa­per op­er­a­tions was down 7 per­cent year over year, and it fell 4 per­cent in the first quarter of 2013 from the same time last year.

The Post is not alone, of course. News­pa­pers across the coun­try have suffered cir­cu­la­tion and rev­en­ue de­cline as read­ers have moved on­line. But The Post is unique in that it is a loc­al pa­per that has had out­sized in­flu­ence as the ar­bit­er of what happened in of­fi­cial Wash­ing­ton — the pa­per’s back­yard. And los­ing own­er­ship of the in­side-the-Belt­way story is “more of a mor­tal threat” to The Post than it would be for most oth­er news out­lets be­cause Wash­ing­ton is the pa­per’s home turf, one cur­rent Post em­ploy­ee said.

In an ex­ten­ded in­ter­view from his glass-walled of­fice on the 5th floor of The Post’s North­w­est Wash­ing­ton headquar­ters, Bar­on offered no trans­form­at­ive plans to stave off the com­pet­i­tion. Rather, he talked of find­ing op­por­tun­it­ies to do in­vest­ig­at­ive, ac­count­ab­il­ity re­port­ing with a fo­cus on money and polit­ics that sets The Post apart from the com­pet­i­tion. Any ed­it­or at a top-flight news­pa­per might have offered the same thoughts 10 or 20 years ago.

“I’m keenly in­ter­ested in polit­ics,” he said. “I’m par­tic­u­larly in­ter­ested in ac­count­ab­il­ity journ­al­ism, in­vest­ig­at­ive work. I’m keenly in­ter­ested in be­ing very com­pet­it­ive on the day to day. I’m in­ter­ested in our do­ing more in-depth stor­ies that look be­hind the scenes, that look ahead, that look at the play­ers in terms of pro­files. Stor­ies that of­fer some per­spect­ive and depth.”

In hir­ing Bar­on, Wey­mouth did not give him any in­struc­tions about where she wanted the polit­ic­al cov­er­age to go. In an e-mail to Na­tion­al Journ­al, she called Bar­on “one of the best ed­it­ors in the world,” with a “well-es­tab­lished track re­cord of pro­du­cing out­stand­ing journ­al­ism.”

“I asked Marty to come to The Post to lead our news­room. He will, as he should, de­cide how our cov­er­age should be dir­ec­ted. I am in­cred­ibly proud of the work we have done and con­tin­ue to do,” she wrote, “and I brought Marty in to build on that for the fu­ture.”

That fu­ture may in­ev­it­ably in­volve fur­ther win­now­ing of the ed­it­or­i­al staff, which has dropped from its peak of 1,000 or so people to about 600. At The Globe, Bar­on cut 40 per­cent of the tra­di­tion­al news­room staff. Still, some ar­gue that he tried to make the cuts as ef­fi­ciently and pain­lessly as pos­sible. An M.B.A., he’s known for keep­ing his news­room’s budget top of mind, know­ing which po­s­i­tions re­main un­filled and tak­ing ad­vant­age of that when pressed for re­duc­tions.

Bar­on’s low pro­file, his in­scrut­able man­ner, and The Post’s star-crossed fin­ances have some of the rank and file on 15th Street anxious. “People can find him hard to read. He keeps his cards close to his chest, so that can, par­tic­u­larly in these early days, res­ult in some guess­ing games about what he’s think­ing,” one Post ed­it­or said. “He’s not a per­son who thinks out loud or tele­graphs his every move.”

Asked if the staff will con­tin­ue to shrink, Bar­on was blunt. “It seems not out of the ques­tion, giv­en what’s hap­pen­ing in the in­dustry. But, as I said, even as we’re shrink­ing cer­tain things, we’re adding oth­er things. So, I don’t think with the in­vest­ment we’re mak­ing in video and some of the oth­er in­vest­ments we’re mak­ing, I don’t think the over­all staff in the news­room is go­ing to be any smal­ler this year than it was at the end of last year.”

But for now, Bar­on wants to fo­cus on the journ­al­ism. He points to cov­er­age dig­ging in­to wheth­er Vir­gin­ia Gov. Bob Mc­Don­nell ac­cep­ted an un­re­por­ted cash gift as ex­amples of the kind of in-depth work the pa­per should be do­ing. He also singled out the story about Sen. Robert Men­en­dez, who raised con­cerns with fed­er­al of­fi­cials over their find­ings that a close friend, a ma­jor cam­paign donor, had over­billed Medi­care.

The Men­en­dez story came after The Times broke the news that the New Jer­sey Demo­crat had helped the same donor in a port-se­cur­ity deal. So, as the Post ed­it­ors dis­cussed how to go at the story, Bar­on re­com­men­ded more, not less. The pa­per would have nev­er got­ten the scoop, a Post re­port­er said, “if not for Marty say­ing we’re go­ing to put more re­sources on it. He has a news sense that’s some­times mis­takenly called old-fash­ioned.”

That sense may also have led The Post to re­frain from the blun­ders that were com­mit­ted by Fox News Chan­nel, the As­so­ci­ated Press, CNN, and even The Globe dur­ing the break­neck Bo­ston bomb­ing cov­er­age. And Bar­on is mind­ful that those stand­ards come at a cost. “You have to be will­ing to sac­ri­fice traffic in fa­vor of ac­cur­acy. So, yeah, it’s tough,” he said. “Read­ers think these days that all in­form­a­tion is avail­able in­stant­an­eously, and the truth is that not all in­form­a­tion is avail­able in­stant­an­eously. You ac­tu­ally need some time to check things out. They ex­pect that you’re go­ing to have it right away, but they’ll hold you ac­count­able if you get it wrong.”

Some might call those prin­ciples old-fash­ioned as well. And if Marty Bar­on’s plan to keep The Post up­right simply comes down to stick­ing close to an ana­log eth­os in a di­git­al age, he has to hope that his read­ers share those val­ues. In these tough and un­cer­tain times for journ­al­ism, in­teg­rity can feel like just an­oth­er ex­per­i­ment­al busi­ness mod­el.

What We're Following See More »
TWO YEARS BEFORE HE JOINED TRUMP CAMPAIGN
FBI Interviewed Manafort in 2013, 2014
6 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was interviewed by the FBI twice while he was working as a political consultant for a Ukrainian political party—several years before he was named a top adviser to Donald Trump, newly filed court documents revealed." His deputy Rick Gates was also interviewed in 2014. "The information raises fresh questions about how closely the Trump campaign vetted staff members and whether Manafort and Gates told officials about their interactions with the FBI."

Source:
“WHAT DO YOU NEED THIS FOR?”
Trump Gives Ronny Jackson an Out
9 hours ago
THE LATEST
CAN STILL BE BRIEFED
Sessions Will Not Recuse Himself from Cohen Investigation
9 hours ago
THE LATEST
DESIGNED TO THWART PATENT TROLLS
SCOTUS Upholds Patent Review Legislation
10 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a new government process for challenging the validity of patents, cementing a method that technology companies have used to knock out patent protections for more than a thousand claimed inventions. The court, in a 7-2 ruling written by Justice Clarence Thomas, affirmed the constitutionality of the new process, created by Congress in 2011 to offer a quicker and cheaper process for challenging patents before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, instead of going to court."

Source:
HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE MARKS UP BILL TOMORROW
Senate HELP Unanimously Passes Opioid Bill
11 hours ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login