The picture tells the story: Captured from behind as they walk towards the exit of the boomingly empty auditorium of the Washington Post building are Don Graham, head of the legendary newspaper family, on the left, flanked by his wife and two of his children.
The photograph was posted on Facebook and Instagram by Marcus Brauchli, a former executive editor of the Post, shortly after Graham announced to a stunned newsroom that after 80 years in his family’s hands the paper was being sold to the Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos, for US$250m.
“A brave, selfless act, as hard as any, done with dignity and from loyalty,” Brauchli wrote beneath the image of the Grahams’ final moments in the institution they had so long cherished.
Whether media historians look back on the sale as a selfless act of bravery will depend largely on how Bezos conducts himself.
No one can dispute how hard the move was for Graham personally, for the wider family whose ownership stretches back to 1933 when the financier Eugene Meyer bought the Post in a bankruptcy sale, and for the staff of the paper.
The shock announcement led to an outpouring of sadness and nostalgia from employees.
One reporter recalled on Twitter the congratulatory notes Graham would regularly distribute to the authors of articles he had enjoyed.
“One of the great joys of working at Donald Graham’s Post: receiving a Donniegram in praise of an article. The newsroom’s favorite reader,” the reporter said.
The impact of the Graham era’s passing has rippled far beyond the newspaper building, and even beyond the US capital.
Under the family’s stewardship the Washington Post, arguably even more than the titan of US journalism the New York Times, came to epitomize the heyday of US newspapers.
That reputation had everything to do with Graham’s predecessor, his mother Katharine, who was thrown into the man’s world of newspapers on the suicide of her husband Philip in 1963. Instead of quitting, she outclassed them all. Three years after taking over the helm she was given the closest thing to a coronation in a republic: She was guest of honor at Truman Capote’s Black and White Ball.
Forging a formidable double act with her chosen editor-in-chief, Ben Bradlee, she matched glamor to gutsiness, standing behind her journalists as they negotiated choppy waters. First they succeeded along with the New York Times in batting off the government’s threat of prior restraint on publication of the Vietnam war Pentagon Papers, then in 1972 they hurled themselves into Watergate.
“The whole world was against us, and against her,” says Len Downie, executive editor of the Washington Post from 1991 to 2008. “As important as Watergate was in political history, the importance to us was Katharine Graham’s unstinting and vigorous support.”
Downie recalls listening over Carl Bernstein’s shoulder as the reporter was on the telephone to former US president Nixon’s attorney general John Mitchell when the official issued the memorable threat that if the Post went ahead with an upcoming article then “Katie Graham’s gonna get her tit caught in a big fat wringer.”
“No matter how tricky it was, no matter if the president was opposed to publishing, we always had the Grahams’ backing,” Downie says.
Challenging though they were journalistically, those days were easy at least in one regard — the money flow. From the 1970s through to the 1990s, the Post held a largely monopoly position in Washington, had only three TV networks to compete with for advertising and enjoyed at its peak in 1993 a solid base of more than 800,000 daily subscribers.
Then came the Internet, and the ravages that have been felt by newspapers around the world.
The turbulence that the Post experienced makes for a familiar story, of plummeting advertising revenues and dwindling circulation — down to today’s subscription base of fewer than 500,000.
On top of the general collapse of the economic model, there were mistakes and missed opportunities specific to the Washington Post.
In 2005 Don Graham let a substantial share in a small Internet start-up slip through his fingers: It was called Facebook.
The paper agonized over the best way to build on the Internet. It started well by opening one of the earliest Web sites for a major newspaper, but then conceived the less happy innovation of sticking the Internet newsroom in Virginia, miles away from the main newspaper building.
The Washington Post has also struggled increasingly with a definition of itself, of its readership and of its purpose. Was it a local paper serving the greater Washington area with news about itself, or was it a great national title founded on its political coverage? Amid dithering over the answers to such questions, it let the horse bolt the stable with the departure in 2007 of senior journalists who founded the highly successful specialist news Web site Politico.
Monday’s decision by the Graham family to hand over the baton to Bezos is in itself a tacit recognition that a style of leadership that was eminently suited to the Woodward-and-Bernstein heyday of newspapers may not be the way forward in the current rambunctious times.
As Downie puts it: “Jeff Bezos is from another generation. He may be better able to cope with the outside forces that are battering the newspaper business than the Graham family that grew up in another world.”
Chinese strongman Xi Jinping (習近平) hasn’t had a very good spring, either economically or politically. Not that long ago, he seemed to be riding high. The PRC economy had been on a long winning streak of more than six percent annual growth, catapulting the world’s most populous nation into the second-largest power, behind only the United States. Hundreds of millions had been brought out of poverty. Beijing’s military too had emerged as the most powerful in Asia, lagging only behind the US, the long-time leader on the global stage. One can attribute much of the recent downturn to the international economic
Taiwan has for decades singlehandedly borne the brunt of a revanchist, ultra-nationalist China — until now. Ever since Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison had the temerity to call for a transparent, international investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, Beijing has been turning the screws on Canberra. This has included unleashing aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomats to intimidate Australian policymakers, enacting punitive tariffs on its exports, and threatening an embargo on Chinese tourists and students to the nation. A tense situation became more serious on June 19 after Morrison revealed that a “sophisticated state-based actor” — read: China — had launched a
Asked whether he declined to impose sanctions against China, US President Donald Trump said: “Well, we were in the middle of a major trade deal... [W]hen you’re in the middle of a negotiation and then all of a sudden you start throwing additional sanctions on — we’ve done a lot.” It was not a proud moment for Trump or the US. Yet, just three days later, John Bolton’s replacement as director of the National Security Council, Robert O’Brien, delivered a powerful indictment of the Chinese communist government and criticized prior administrations’ “passivity” in the face of Beijing’s contraventions of international law