Reports about his involvement with news coverage at The Post — which Lewis denied — sparked concern for the appearance of violating traditional firewalls that keep corporate media bosses from influencing decisions made by news editors.
On Wednesday, the New York Times first reported a tense meeting in May between Lewis and Buzbee related to The Post’s plans for a story about a long-running civil case brought by Prince Harry and others regarding a phone-hacking scheme at some of Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids, where Lewis once worked.
The Post has confirmed that account with two people familiar with the meeting, which Buzbee described at the time to multiple people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive conversation.
Lewis told Buzbee that the story — about a judge’s decision whether to include Murdoch executives, including Lewis, in the case as individuals accused of covering up evidence — did not warrant coverage and that publishing it represented a lapse in judgment, these people said.
The Post published its story, but Buzbee was concerned about the tenor of their exchange. Buzbee had a similar exchange with Lewis in March over a previous story about the case, another person said.
In an email to a Post reporter Thursday afternoon, Lewis called the account “inaccurate” and said that he “did not pressure her in any way.” He acknowledged Buzbee had informed him of plans to publish a story but that he was “professional throughout.” He also said he doesn’t recall ever having used the phrase “serious lapse in judgment.”
He described a process, which he said was common, of asking about a story and offering thoughts or input “if appropriate,” and making clear that the decision to publish ultimately rested with the editor.
“I know how this works, I know the right thing to do, and what not to do. I know where the lines are, and I respect them,” he wrote, adding: “The Executive Editor is free to publish when, how, and what they want to. I am fully signed up to that.”
Buzbee declined to comment on Lewis’s description of their meetings.
The other press account came from NPR media reporter David Folkenflik, who published a story Thursday describing his experience with Lewis: After being named The Post’s next publisher, but before his first day on the job, Lewis “repeatedly — and heatedly” offered to give Folkenflik an exclusive interview about The Post’s future, in exchange for him dropping a story about new court documents in the phone-hacking case. He refused.
In his email to The Post, Lewis called Folkenflik — who published a book in 2013 on Rupert Murdoch’s media empire — “an activist, not a journalist.” Lewis added: “I had an off the record conversation with him before I joined you at The Post and some six months later he has dusted it down, and made up some excuse to make a story of a non-story.”
Folkenflik told The Post late Thursday their off-the-record agreement related to the substance of the hacking case and the story he was reporting, but not “his efforts to induce me to kill my story.” He added that Lewis and a London-based press aide “subsequently confirmed” the nature of the offer in exchanges “that were not placed off the record.”
Folkenflik noted that Lewis did not deny the offers. As for Lewis’s description of him as an “activist,” Folkenflik noted that “The Post itself and the New York Times do find my stories newsworthy.”
Many in The Post newsroom found the accounts dismaying. A publisher and CEO oversees the entirety of a newspaper but traditionally does not direct or oversee decisions about what to report.
It is considered a third rail in journalism for business-side leaders to intervene or attempt to influence coverage in their own publications, particularly when it concerns them and their own interests, said Kathleen Culver, director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
“The firewall exists to protect the credibility of the news coverage,” she said. “It’s there so people can’t peddle influence that ultimately keeps important information from readers or viewers.”
Sometimes publishers and CEOs are consulted or notified about sensitive reporting — such…
Read More: Post publisher draws more scrutiny after newsroom shake-up