Washington
The Washington Post bleeds subscriptions as Bezos responds to endorsement criticism – Poynter
The exodus at The Washington Post continues. Both from staff and readers. Two more Post writers have resigned from the editorial board in protest of owner Jeff Bezos blocking the board from writing an endorsement of Kamala Harris for president.
And in what is an absolutely stunning number, NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik reported the Post had more than 200,000 digital subscriptions canceled as of midday Monday. That would be about 8% of the paper’s paid circulation of 2.5 million subscribers, which includes the print product. That 200,000 number is expected to rise.
Meanwhile, Molly Roberts and Pulitzer Prize winner David E. Hoffman both announced Monday that they have resigned from the Post’s editorial board. (Both will remain at the paper.)
In a lengthy post on X, Roberts wrote, “To be very clear, the decision not to endorse this election was not the editorial board’s. It was (you can read the reporting) Jeff Bezos’s. By registering my dissent, I don’t intend to impugn the conduct of any of my colleagues, all of whom were put in nearly impossible positions.”
Roberts would add, “I’m resigning from The Post editorial board because the imperative to endorse Kamala Harris over Donald Trump is about as morally clear as it gets. Worse, our silence is exactly what Donald Trump wants: for the media, for us, to keep quiet.”
In his resignation from the editorial board letter, Hoffman wrote how, for decades, Post editorials have been “a beacon of light, signaling hope to dissidents, political prisoners and the voiceless.” After more examples, Hoffman wrote, “Under our watch at The Post, no one would be lost in silence.”
He then added, “Until Friday, I assumed we would apply the same values and principles to an editorial endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris. I believe we face a very real threat of autocracy in the candidacy of Donald Trump. I find it untenable and unconscionable that we have lost our voice at this perilous moment.”
This has turned into a public relations nightmare for the Post.
CNN’s Brian Stelter wrote, “Thousands of perturbed and disappointed customers continue to cancel their Washington Post subscriptions as a result of Jeff Bezos’s decision to block the publication from endorsing Kamala Harris. Post leaders are shook-up — but unable to stop the proverbial bleeding since Bezos is the one in charge.”
As I wrote in Monday’s newsletter, one can understand readers being upset and looking for some form of protest. The easiest is canceling their subscription to the Post. But that likely only hurts Post staffers, who are just as angry as the readers. Other than folks saying rotten things about him, the person behind the decision to not endorse — owner Jeff Bezos — isn’t going to really feel the impact of canceled subscriptions, even if they run into the hundreds of thousands. (Although, I must admit that number is way more than I could have imagined.)
The resignations and public objections by journalists at the Post do, however, help take the onus away from the paper and put it squarely where it belongs: on Bezos. The Post’s reputation might be taking a hit over this, but the journalists at the papers are doing their best to say how much they disapprove of the decision and, perhaps, helping the newsroom and editorial board maintain some integrity.
And Hoffman made it clear that he is not giving up on the Post.
In an interview with the Post’s Manuel Roig-Franzia, conducted before Hoffman announced his resignation from the editorial board, he said, “It’s extremely difficult for us because we built this institution. But we can’t give up on our American democracy or The Post.”
In a column over the weekend, Washington Post opinion columnist Dana Milbank wrote that he understands the anger from readers and he shares it. But he’s not quitting and he hopes readers don’t quit on the Post either.
He wrote, “Of course, if Friday’s non-endorsement announcement is followed by other demands from our owner that we bend the knee to Trump, that’s a different matter. If this turns out to be the beginning of a crackdown on our journalistic integrity — if journalists are ordered to pull their punches, called off sensitive stories or fired for doing their jobs — my colleagues and I will be leading the calls for Post readers to cancel their subscriptions, and we’ll be resigning en masse.”
Milbank went on to write, “ … for the past nine years, I’ve been labeling Trump a racist and a fascist, adding more evidence each week — and not once have I been stifled. I’ve never even met nor spoken to Bezos. The moment I’m told I can no longer report the truth will be the moment to find other work. Until then, I’ll keep writing. I hope you’ll keep reading.”
But, The New York Times’ Benjamin Mullin reported that in an “intense” meeting involving Post opinion editor David Shipley and staff on Monday, one staffer said the damage done was “incalculable.”
Mullin also reported that Bezos had reservations about an endorsement for president as far back as September, but that Shipley was trying to get Bezos to move off that position.
After several days of upheaval, Bezos finally responded to all the criticism in an op-ed for the Post published Monday evening.
Bezos wrote, “Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, ‘I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.’ None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”
That feels like a lame excuse. By that standard, a paper should never write an editorial about anything.
The timing of the announcement, Bezos admitted, could have been better, writing, “I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.
Bezos also wrote, “I would also like to be clear that no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here. Neither campaign nor candidate was consulted or informed at any level or in any way about this decision. It was made entirely internally.”
Bezos admitted that Dave Limp, the chief executive of Bezos’ aerospace company Blue Origin, met with Trump on the day that Post announced there would be no endorsement.
Bezos wrote, “I sighed when I found out, because I knew it would provide ammunition to those who would like to frame this as anything other than a principled decision. But the fact is, I didn’t know about the meeting beforehand. Even Limp didn’t know about it in advance; the meeting was scheduled quickly that morning. There is no connection between it and our decision on presidential endorsements, and any suggestion otherwise is false.”
Bezos wrote that he is not the ideal owner of the Post. That’s because executives at his companies, such as Amazon and Blue Origin, are always meeting with government officials. However, Bezos defended his ownership of the Post, writing, “I assure you that my views here are, in fact, principled, and I believe my track record as owner of The Post since 2013 backs this up. You are of course free to make your own determination, but I challenge you to find one instance in those 11 years where I have prevailed upon anyone at The Post in favor of my own interests. It hasn’t happened.”
There’s much more to Bezos’ op-ed and I encourage you to read it in full. But I doubt that his words will placate angry readers or tamp down the resentment inside the Post.
This piece originally appeared in The Poynter Report, our daily newsletter for everyone who cares about the media. Subscribe to The Poynter Report here.
The Washington Commanders are retiring John Riggins’ No. 44 during the upcoming NFL season, the team announced Thursday.
The Hall of Fame running back will be honored in a ceremony at halftime of the team’s game against the Los Angeles Rams on Nov. 8.
“There are certain players whose impact goes far beyond statistics, championships and accolades: They become woven into the identity of a franchise,” controlling owner Josh Harris said in a statement. “John Riggins is one of those players. …Our fans not only admired him, they identified with him. He is authentic, unapologetically himself and deeply connected to the people around him. John has meant so much to this franchise, our fans and the game of football.”
Riggins is the organization’s all-time leading rusher with 7,472 yards and 79 touchdowns on 1,988 carries and helped the team win the Super Bowl in the 1982 season.
The fan favorite nicknamed “Riggo” was the MVP of that Super Bowl for his performance best known for his memorable 43-yard TD run in the fourth quarter that put Washington ahead of the Miami Dolphins. He was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1992.
Riggins is the seventh player to have his number retired by the team, joining Sammy Baugh, Bobby Mitchell, Sean Taylor, Sonny Jurgensen, Darrell Green and Art Monk. Green, Monk and Riggins have all happened since Harris’ group took over from longtime owner Dan Snyder.
Washington
Washington law says to alert the public when doctors are accused of misconduct. It can take months
This story describes detailed allegations of sexual violence and other sexual misconduct.
This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with KUOW. Sign up for Dispatches to get ProPublica’s stories in your inbox every week.
Experts on laws protecting patient safety give Washington state high marks for the types of information it is willing to disclose about doctors accused of wrongdoing.
Like other states, Washington lets patients look up doctors by name online to read any state allegations against them. But decades ago, Washington lawmakers created a separate pathway that doesn’t leave the homework to patients, mandating that regulators issue a press release whenever an investigation results in formal allegations being filed against a doctor. Washington is alone in legally requiring such proactive outreach to the news media, the Federation of State Medical Boards says.
Yet an examination of Washington discipline records by KUOW and ProPublica found that regardless of what the law calls for, Washington fails to reliably call the public’s attention to serious misconduct allegations against doctors who have been allowed to keep practicing while their cases proceed.
Announcements can take months to go out — and may not go out at all until after the case is resolved.
Take the case of Brooks Watson, a Richland, Washington, doctor who the state medical board accused of making nonconsensual sexual contact, unwanted sexual advances or inappropriate sexual remarks to five of his coworkers over the course of five years.
During one encounter in 2023, Washington Medical Commission records allege, Watson isolated a subordinate in his office and, without her consent, kissed her, touched her breasts, put his hands down her pants, groped her vagina and exposed his penis.
The commission sent Watson a “statement of charges” alleging sexual misconduct and unprofessional conduct on Aug. 19, 2025, and it amended the charges in June to include an allegation that Watson had assaulted someone at his home.
Yet the commission issued no public announcement about Watson’s case for more than nine months after first filing allegations.
Watson remains licensed to practice, and an online provider database run by the state shows no final decision on his case has been made as of July 6.
The attorney defending him in the criminal case stemming from the incident at his home said that Watson disputes the allegations and that he pleaded not guilty to the misdemeanor assault charge against him. The attorney referred further questions to another lawyer who he said represented Watson in workplace matters; that person acknowledged a request for comment sent by email but did not answer emailed questions or respond to voicemails.
Watson did not answer emails or phone messages seeking his response to the medical commission’s claims. Meeting materials on the commission’s website say Watson had a hearing scheduled in April.
KUOW and ProPublica began examining how and when Washington tells the public about doctors facing discipline following the case of Mark Mulholland, an eastern Washington OB-GYN accused last year of conducting irregular pelvic exams and making inappropriate remarks.
A Washington OB-GYN was repeatedly accused of sexual misconduct. The state medical board let him keep practicing
He initially kept seeing patients, and at least one has accused Mulholland in court of abuse and negligence that she says occurred during the time between when the commission filed formal charges and when it announced them. The woman alleges Mulholland “shoved his fingers into her rectum” and “said to her with confidence that she had a nice-looking and tight vagina.”
More than 80 lawsuits related to Mulholland’s alleged misconduct have been filed against the doctor himself, his former employer Kadlec or its affiliate, the Providence hospital chain.
(Mulholland has not responded to requests for comment, but the doctor or his attorney told the commission previously that he strives to be gentle and respectful with cervical exams and denied conducting them in ways that patients described. In the civil litigation, which remains ongoing, the doctor, Providence and Kadlec all deny wrongdoing. In the state disciplinary case, which remains open, Mulholland signed an interim order agreeing to restrictions on his license.)
As with many announcements of charges against doctors whose licenses remained unrestricted, the commission did not first publish a notice about Mulholland on the press release section of its website, but rather in a subscribers-only email that said nothing about what he was accused of. It came six weeks after charges were filed.
The list is supposed to go out quarterly, a schedule that guarantees many charges stay off the radar for months — or even longer when the board fails to keep to its publication schedule. At least 269 days passed recently without subscribers receiving an email announcing charges being filed against a doctor and without the commission announcing charges in an online press release.
Some cases still have not been publicized.
Presented by KUOW and ProPublica with questions about how it notifies the public, the commission issued a written statement saying it plans to alter its practices to make allegations against doctors more visible.
Although the commission believes its current practices meet the law’s notification requirement, the statement said, the agency “is always looking for ways to grow.”
“Technology and public accessibility standards continue to evolve since the statute was written,” the statement said. The medical commission “recognizes the value in refining our processes and establishing new best practices to enhance transparency.”
A Seattle doctor was investigated for fertility fraud. The case highlights tension between patient, physician rights
On May 29, the same day the commission sent its statement, it sent four email notices announcing initial or updated allegations against licensees who were not immediately suspended — the first such emails subscribers received since June 2025.
Washington state Rep. Gerry Pollet, a Seattle Democrat and outspoken advocate for disclosure and accountability, said the medical commission was “absolutely not complying with the law.”
“The Legislature clearly said, ‘You have to inform the public quickly, and you should do that through a news release,’” Pollet said. “That’s one of the mechanisms. And the implication of a news release is you have to put it out while it’s still news. And waiting months to put something on a limited listserv doesn’t meet the spirit, much less the letter, of the law.”
Pollet said he plans to ask other legislators to join him in contacting the medical commission and asking for more prompt and public notifications.
And if that doesn’t work, he said, “ What we might need is direction in the budget to demand that they follow the law.”
The letter of the law
The Washington Medical Commission has a well established process for looking into the roughly 2,000 allegations of provider misconduct it receives each year.
If an investigation finds evidence that a doctor violated the law, the medical commission issues a statement of charges. The doctor has a right to contest these before a health law judge or the commission issues a final order spelling out any disciplinary action or dropping the case. Months can go by in the interim.
Washington law directs the medical commission to report both statements of charges and final orders to interested parties: the person whose complaint triggered an investigation, certain professional organizations and the public.
Specifically, the law says public notification “shall include press releases to appropriate local news media and the major news wire services.”
Two legal experts said the availability of the state’s email list notifying subscribers of “legal actions,” which requires journalists and others to opt in, conceivably meets the law’s requirements. But Seth Rosenberg, an administrative and employment law attorney, said by email that the fact that it gives only names, dates and locations — not a description of the charges doctors face — arguably means “it is bereft of meaningful detail.”
Whether or not the emails convey enough information, KUOW and ProPublica’s review found that they often are not issued for a long time.
The review focused on charges against doctors whose licenses remained untouched while they awaited a disciplinary decision. It turned up 13 emails or press releases from May 2024 through July 6 that announced charges while the case was still open, five of which were not sent for more than two months after charges were brought.
In another 12 cases, the commission did not send out public notifications until after it resolved charges against the doctor, often months after the physician was put on notice. Three of these cases were shared by way of the agency’s quarterly newsletter, which doesn’t necessarily go to subscribers on the legal actions list.
Four doctors accused last year or in January still have yet to appear in an email, press release or newsletter noting their charges as of July 6.
All told, the commission has gone 100, 200 or even 300 days — in the case of Watson, the Richland doctor accused of sexual misconduct with coworkers — without either publicizing charges or taking away a doctor’s license.
It’s unclear how many of the physicians identified in KUOW and ProPublica’s review continued practicing while waiting for their cases to be resolved, but they had the legal ability to do so.
The commission did not respond when asked to verify that it had failed to publicize cases against doctors for whom no email bulletins could be found from early in the disciplinary process. Executive Director Kyle Karinen said the commission has consistently attached charges to doctors’ entries in an online database and listed charged doctors in commission meeting materials online.
The Washington Department of Health, a related agency that handles sexual misconduct allegations against doctors when the investigations do not require medical expertise, acknowledged that it failed to publish any bulletins on 30 enforcement actions since 2016 but said it has recently fixed the problem.
The medical commission’s delayed or or nonexistent notifications encompass a range of alleged doctor misconduct.
Kareematulai Arogundade was accused in August of failing to undergo a mental examination that the commission required. The physician, who did not respond when contacted by KUOW and ProPublica by email and phone, first appeared more than 120 days later in the commission’s winter newsletter after his license was indefinitely suspended.
Sophie Gomez was accused in October of failing to respond to a request for information about a complaint filed with the board, and her license was indefinitely suspended in February, after which the commission issued a press release. (Gomez declined to comment when contacted by KUOW and ProPublica.)
The commission did announce charges prior to resolving the case against Jonathan Wynn Hemmert, who oversaw clinical operations at three Washington clinics that used a device called Cryoskin, a temperature-controlled wand that manufacturers say can remove unwanted fat cells when it’s rubbed against a patient’s skin.
The state agency said clinic staffers had clients sign a personal injury waiver, which the commission said was unenforceable, against public policy and deceptive and dishonest. The commission said he also failed to ensure the device was approved by the Food and Drug Administration and failed to supervise staff using the device on patients.
Hemmert signed a settlement agreeing to address the concerns, but the commission in November filed formal allegations that he had breached it. (Hemmert did not respond when asked to comment on the allegations, which have not yet been adjudicated.)
A press release was posted to the commission’s website in March, 112 days after he was charged with breaching the settlement. Two months after that, a listserv notice went out.
‘A right to know’
The 1984 Washington state law that requires public notification was passed as part of the Uniform Disciplinary Act, a set of guidelines for state medical boards and commissions that license providers and investigate complaints.
Among the sponsors was then-state legislator Mike Kreidler, a Democrat and optometrist who served 16 years in the Legislature and 24 as insurance commissioner.
Kreidler said he doesn’t recall the details of how the 1984 law came together. But looking back at it, Kreidler, now 82, said he believes the public notification requirement fulfilled an important function. He said to get to the point where the commission completes an investigation and files charges means a complaint has enough evidence behind it to proceed toward disciplinary action.
“They’re not going to be frivolous in any fashion, and therefore the public certainly does have a right to know,” he said.
‘Such a violation’: Patients of former UW doctor accused of fertility fraud grapple with uncertainty, tough choices
Presented with KUOW and ProPublica’s findings, people who support policies favoring disclosure to patients said the commission’s interpretation of the 1984 notification law falls short.
Patricia Kelmar, senior director of healthcare campaigns at PIRG, a nonprofit advocacy organization for consumers, said the commission should be expansive in discharging its duty to notify the public as the law requires, contacting not only reporters but also a doctor’s current and former patients.
“ We should not be hoping that we stumble across the information that’s going to protect us from a doctor who’s dangerous,” Kelmar said.
Lisa McGiffert, patient safety activist with the Patient Safety Action Network, said the commission’s frequent delay in notifying the public does not fulfill the spirit of Washington’s law, which in her interpretation necessitates a quick release of information.
“ There’s nothing preventing Washington state from saying these have to be sent out to the news media within four or five working days,” McGiffert said.
Local media outlets have paid attention in the occasional cases where the medical commission has announced an action via the press release section of its website. A review of news releases about in-state doctors accused of conduct unrelated to their mental health shows that, more often than not, relevant media outlets have published stories afterward.
A news tip to a local journalist, not the commission’s email list, prompted the first media coverage of the case against Mulholland last June — nearly two months after the commission formally charged the gynecologist with misconduct involving three patients.
The woman who later accused Mulholland of performing an uncomfortable rectal exam and saying her vagina looked nice said the actions occurred at an appointment on May 1, 2025, or just days after the commission filed formal allegations.
The woman told KUOW and ProPublica that she was angry that she heard no news about the commission’s existing allegations before she saw Mulholland.
“I’d never heard anything bad about him,” she said in an interview with KUOW and ProPublica.
Had she known, she wouldn’t have gone, she said.
-
Virginia2 minutes ago4 indicted in Virginia double homicide; second victim ID’d as grandmother of 6
-
Washington9 minutes agoWashington Commanders are retiring Hall of Famer John Riggins’ No. 44
-
Wisconsin12 minutes agoWisconsin State Patrol rides with truck and bus drivers to spot violations in five areas
-
West Virginia17 minutes agoWest Virginia town fires entire police force after chief resigns, sergeant alleges evidence room break-in
-
Wyoming24 minutes agoWHP: July 5 single-vehicle rollover north of Riverton resulted in one death, one injury
-
Crypto27 minutes agoBritish Airline Jet2 Shares Jump 9% After $536M Fuel Hedge Gain Offsets Middle East Travel Fears
-
Finance31 minutes agoTreasury Pick Queried on Iran War Fallout to Face Senate Finance
-
Fitness39 minutes agoQuote of the day by Cher: ‘Nothing lifts me out of a bad mood better than a hard workout on my…’ – motivating life lessons by Oscar-winning actress of Moonstruck and singer of Believe on exercise, mental health, fitness and how this daily habit can transform your mood and mindset
