On Sunday, the Washington Post made a public announcement that Robert Winnett would not be taking on the role of editor at the newspaper after a series of internal conflicts. The decision was made following the publishing of a critical article about Winnett’s questionable past in the UK, which included stories based on stolen records.
Instead of joining the Washington Post, Winnett will continue his work at the Daily Telegraph in London. This news comes after a period of unrest at the newspaper, which began with the sudden departure of executive editor Sally Buzbee and raised concerns about the practices of both Winnett and the new Post corporate chief who hired him. Both individuals have backgrounds in London newsrooms that operate under different standards compared to American newsrooms.
Winnett’s hiring was initially announced by Post CEO William Lewis, who had previously worked with Winnett at the Telegraph and the Sunday Times. However, in light of the recent events, Winnett has decided to remain at the Daily Telegraph, much to the satisfaction of Telegraph editor Chris Evans, who praised Winnett’s talent and expressed that his decision to stay was a gain for their publication.
The article published by the Washington Post highlighted several issues with Winnett’s past work, including his association with John Ford, a former actor who admitted to using deceptive and illegal methods to obtain confidential information for the Sunday Times. Ford’s activities included attempting to steal Tony Blair’s memoir and discussing the use of untraceable phones to maintain secrecy in journalistic practices.
Furthermore, Winnett was implicated in using deceptive tactics such as impersonation and changing bank passwords to gather information on prominent figures in Britain. There were also allegations that Winnett handled sensitive leaks obtained through dubious means, including government documents and details about high-profile individuals.
The article shed light on a culture of silence and protection within British journalism, hinting at a practice of safeguarding journalists like Winnett who engaged in questionable information-gathering methods. Ultimately, these revelations led to Winnett’s decision to remain in the UK, continuing to utilize his controversial techniques.
In conclusion, the Washington Post’s publicized conflict with Robert Winnett has brought to light important issues surrounding journalistic ethics and practices. The decision for Winnett to remain at the Daily Telegraph underscores the differences in standards between British and American newsrooms, and raises questions about the integrity of information gathering in the journalism industry.
