Aftershocks from the earthquake that hit The Washington Post newsroom Sunday night were still being felt on Monday.

Sally Buzbee’s abrupt resignation as executive editor, as well as the plan to replace her, has Washington Post staffers angry, confused and curious about what the future has in store for one of America’s great institutions.

First, let’s start here: Why is Buzbee out after just three years?

It actually goes back five months, when Will Lewis was brought in by owner Jeff Bezos to be the new publisher and CEO. Just last month, Lewis told staff that the Post has suffered stunning financial losses in the past year — some $77 million — and that there had been a 50% drop-off in audience since 2020.

Clearly, even someone as ridiculously wealthy as Bezos isn’t OK with that.

So Lewis came up with a plan that includes a new organizational structure that will divide the newsroom into three divisions, with each reporting to Lewis.

Apparently, that new structure didn’t work for Buzbee. According to The New York Times’ Benjamin Mullin and Katie Robertson, Buzbee told managers on a call Sunday night, “I would have preferred to stay to help us get through this period, but it just got to the point where it wasn’t possible.”

The Washington Post’s Sarah Ellison, Elahe Izadi and Jeremy Barr reported that in a meeting with staff on Monday morning, Lewis said, “I really enjoyed working with Sally. I wish it could have gone on for longer, but it couldn’t. And I don’t think it’s appropriate to take that bit of the conversation any further.”

The Post reported that Lewis offered Buzbee the role overseeing a new service/social media division, adding, “But Buzbee was uncomfortable with the structure and did not believe she could be effective in the role, the person familiar with their conversations said. That left her with no real place in the organization and the two agreed that she needed to step aside.”

One could see why Buzbee would balk at taking over a new division, which would certainly appear like a demotion after being in charge of the entire newsroom for the past three years — a job she took after leaving The Associated Press, where she was executive editor.

Lewis did apologize for the timing of Buzbee’s departure — curiously on a Sunday evening with a hastily put-together statement that did not include a comment from Buzbee. Lewis said the Post had to scramble because news had begun to leak out. (The New York Times was in the midst of breaking the news on Sunday.)

Paul Farhi, who was a longtime media reporter at the Post before accepting a buyout late last year, told The Associated Press’ David Bauder, “It definitely kind of blindsided people. But it shows you that Will Lewis is working out of a sense of crisis and urgency. He’s only been there five months and he’s making gigantic changes to the newsroom.”

The Post reported Buzbee attended a journalism event over the weekend and gave no indication that her time at the Post was about to end.

Clearly, however, the moves were not totally unexpected, seeing as how the hurried statement already laid out a plan for Buzbee’s replacements. Matt Murray, a former editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal, will replace Buzbee as executive editor through the November election. He then will transition over to this new division focused on service and social media journalism — although details about that division remain sparse.

Then, Robert Winnett, who has run news operations at The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph, will take over the Post’s traditional newsroom. David Shipley will remain in charge of the opinion section.

Margaret Sullivan, a former media columnist for The Washington Post, bitingly noted how the three reporting to Lewis, who is white, are all white men, tweeting, “Each of our three newsrooms will be led by an outstanding white male, which we feel is especially appropriate in Washington DC. If these three newsrooms are successful, we will consider a fourth and fifth.”

It’s a topic that came up when Lewis introduced Murray to the Post staff in a meeting on Monday. Several staffers asked about diversity and, according to The New York Times, one reporter asked how the new leaders were chosen and that it looked as if Lewis merely picked buddies who he used to work with.

The reporter said, “When you were here before, you talked very movingly about how you care about diversity — and people talk about diversity — but then when push comes to shove, they say, ‘Well, I looked around and I couldn’t find anyone.’”

Vanity Fair’s Charlotte Klein reported that one Post staffer drew applause when they asked if “any women or people of color were interviewed and seriously considered for either of these positions.”

Klein also reported that when asked about which people Lewis met with, he said, “It was an iterative, messy process, which I don’t want to go into the details of.”

About diversity, the Post reported Lewis said, “I’ve got to do better, and you’ll see that going forward.” Murray, according to the Times, said diversity would be a “constant commitment,” although these latest moves would not suggest that.

The Washington Post Guild put out a statement saying it was “troubled” by the departure of Buzbee, as well as “the suggestion (from Lewis) that the financial issues plaguing our company span from the work of us journalists instead of mismanagement from our leadership.”

It added, “We are also concerned about the lack of diversity at the top levels of the organization, especially as the Post seeks to reach new audiences while continuing to cover the most pressing issues in the nation and the world.”

NPR’s David Folkenflik wrote that the meeting on Monday was “turbulent,” adding, “Gone was the soothing, smooth presence during Lewis’ first meeting with colleagues last fall after his own appointment became public. Lewis instead frequently sounded defensive and combative. At one point, he characterized a reporter’s question as ‘posturing.’ At several others, he sought to cut the meeting short. It ran for about 40 minutes.”

There were reports that even though Buzbee was not in attendance at Monday’s meeting, she received a lengthy ovation from the Post staff.

Klein reported that a staffer told her, “I don’t think she deserved to go out this way,” and that colleagues “don’t feel good about the fact that the first female executive editor of The Washington Post got a one paragraph goodbye note at 8:30 p.m. on a Sunday, and that she’s being replaced by more white men we don’t know.”

What’s next?

So the Post will plow forward without the respected Buzbee but with new leadership and, most of all, a new plan to attract new readers, which seems worth a try.

Again, details of the new plan, particularly this new division, remain largely unknown, prompting questions from staffers. In his memo Sunday night announcing that Buzbee was stepping down, Lewis wrote, “The aim is to give the millions of Americans — who feel traditional news is not for them but still want to be kept informed — compelling, exciting and accurate news where they are and in the style that they want.”

In Monday’s staff meeting, Lewis was blunt, telling one staffer in what the Post described as a heated exchange, “We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around. We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”

Murray told staff that he isn’t looking to blow up the newsroom for the sake of blowing it up, saying, “The Post has such a great legacy, a history and tradition of great journalism in the past and right until this morning. There’s so much outstanding work that comes out of this newsroom. I’m humbled and proud to be a part of it.”

Still, many questions remain, including about the people in charge.

Farhi told Bauder, “In a few months, two British-born editors (Lewis and Winnett) will be running the leading newspaper in the capital of the United States. It was kind of unimaginable a couple of months ago.”

An awful word choice

Sports podcaster and TV host Pat McAfee, shown here in January. (AP Photo/Darron Cummings)

What in the world was Pat McAfee thinking?

The media sensation who owns his own sports TV show/podcast that ESPN carries each weekday afternoon decided to use a PowerPoint presentation introduced like a game show to discuss one of the weekend’s big sports topics. It was about WNBA player Caitlin Clark, who was on the receiving end of a dirty shove by an opponent. And that led to a much larger discussion about some of the backlash Clark is facing as an extremely popular rookie — and all the media and public discussion surrounding it.

But the PowerPoint wasn’t the part that has us questioning McAfee. It’s something he said. At one point, while standing among his on-air minions, McAfee said, “I would like the media people that continue to say, ‘This rookie class, this rookie class, this rookie class’. Nah, just call it for what it is — there’s one white bitch for the Indiana team who is a superstar.”

That word is inexcusable in any context.

McAfee’s studio is in Indianapolis, where Clark plays and where McAfee was a punter for the Indianapolis Colts. He’s been a big supporter of Clark as she has become popular. His segment on Clark was actually meant to show her support and talk about her importance and popularity in the WNBA.

But all of that was lost when he used that word. If he was trying to make a point that this is what others are saying about Clark then he didn’t do a good enough job because it seems that most people didn’t catch that part, including me.

ESPN did not comment on what McAfee said, but McAfee put out a tweet after his show that said:

I shouldn’t have used “white bitch” as a descriptor of Caitlin Clark. No matter the context.. even if we’re talking about race being a reason for some of the stuff happening.. I have way too much respect for her and women to put that into the universe.

My intentions when saying it were complimentary just like the entire segment but, a lot of folks are saying that it certainly wasn’t at all. That’s 100% on me and for that I apologize… I have sent an apology to Caitlin as well.

Everything else I said… still alllllll facts. #Journalism #WNBAProgrum #SheIsTheOne

Here’s the danger in having McAfee, who is extremely popular, on the air. He has no filter. That’s part of what some people like about him. But therein lies that danger.

It’s awful that he used that word to begin with, in any context. But it’s also bad that he said it without realizing that he shouldn’t say it — ever, but especially on the air. He has gotten used to saying whatever he wants whenever he wants. And when you’re that comfortable, when you think you are that great and that everything that comes out of your mouth is golden, when you think you are untouchable, you say really dumb things.

Or maybe that’s giving him too much credit.

I say all this to set up this tweet from writer, podcaster and former ESPN staffer Jemele Hill: “Referring to Caitlin Clark as ‘the white bitch for Indiana.’ That’s beyond being too comfortable. Just totally unacceptable.”

A wow moment

Speaking of WNBA coverage, an interesting moment came up on ESPN’s “First Take” on Monday morning. The panel, including the show’s star, Stephen A. Smith, co-host Molly Qerim, and analysts Monica McNutt and Shannon Sharpe — all airing from different locations — talked about Caitlin Clark and her weekend. At one point, Smith said that he needed to “watch every syllable” when discussing the WNBA.

To which McNutt said, “Welcome to the world of being a woman, Stephen A., and how you have to dance about your word choice and how you have to please everybody and anybody as you navigate your being.”

After a brief exchange, Smith then said, “Who talks more about the WNBA, who talks about women’s sports more than ‘First Take’?”

Then McNutt left everyone speechless by saying, “Stephen A., respectfully, with your platform, you could have been doing this three years ago if you wanted to.”

The moment was so stunning that the normally loquacious Smith could only look in disbelief and say “wow” while a clearly uncomfortable Qerim tried to get the show to commercial.

The Athletic’s Richard Deitsch tweeted that ESPN bosses “should honestly give Monica McNutt a raise. This takes some gumption. The idea that First Take has been a sports media leader in women’s sports talk is absurd on face. That said, I 100% appreciate that the show has amped up women’s sports talk from years past.”

Meanwhile …

This all leads back to coverage of women’s sports. The Atlantic’s Jemele Hill had a column that turned out to be perfectly timed: “The One Downside of Gender Equality In Sports.”

Hill wrote, “As a female journalist who has covered women’s sports for years, I have long dreamed of the day that female athletes would demand the level of media attention traditionally reserved for men. Now that day is finally here—and it’s a lot less satisfying than I imagined.”

I don’t want to try and sum up Hill’s points in a tidy sentence or two, so I encourage you to check out her perceptive column.

Media tidbits

• CNBC’s Lillian Rizzo and Alex Sherman with “Paramount and Skydance agree to terms of a merger deal.”
• Axios’ Sara Fischer with “Wall Street Journal plans multimillion-dollar brand campaign amid newsroom changes.”
• For The New York Times, Ray Mark Rinaldi with “Being a Journalist in Mexico Can Be a Life-or-Death Experience.”
• The Daily Beast’s Amanda Yen with “Alex Jones Insists Those Were Real Tears During His Meltdown Over Infowars Shutdown.”
• Good stuff from my now-former colleague Annie Aguiar, who is starting a fellowship at The New York Times after being Poynter’s audience engagement producer: “What do horse race journalists think of ‘horse race journalism’?”
• Semafor’s Max Tani with “Money woes, staff issues strain the Intercept.”
• Also from Semafor, Ben Smith with “Why politicians want to buy the news.”
• Awful Announcing’s Arthur Weinstein with “T.J. Simers, former LA Times sports columnist, dies at 73.”

Hot type

• For The New York Times, Jack Nicas with photographs by Victor Moriyama in “The Internet’s Final Frontier: Remote Amazon Tribes.”
• Big story from ProPublica’s Robert Faturechi, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski: “Multiple Trump Witnesses Have Received Significant Financial Benefits From His Businesses, Campaign.”

More resources for journalists

• Got a story you’d like to write for Poynter? Email pitch@poynter.org with your idea, approximate timeline and word count.
• Dynamic, in-person, five-day workshop for new newsroom managers.
• Applications are now open for Leadership Academy for Diversity in Media.
• Manage big responsibilities without direct reports? Try Lead With Influence.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.

The Poynter Report is our daily media newsletter. To have it delivered to your inbox Monday-Friday, sign up here.