WaPo’s Problems Didn’t End With the Firing of Sonmez, as Taylor Lorenz Returns to Spotlight – Opinion

The Washington Post is continuing to show internal disarray.

The Washington Post is continuing its downward spiral into an incoherent realm. The paper returns to the task of dealing with another troubled staffer after its drama-filled week with a petulant journalist. Taylor Lorenz should be appreciative for Felicia Sonmez’s childish drama. It distracted from her recent article failure and the subsequent fallout. After the paper Final wordsSonmez fired Sonmez. She was yanked from the stage and given the hook. Lorenz then took the spotlight.

Eric Wemple, WaPo’s media critic did something quite unique recently: he looked critically at his own newspaper. Wemple sometimes shows flashes such as this. As he examined the continuing inconsistencies of the Lorenz issue he found something surprising. The details were not disclosed by his paper.

Briefly, Lorenz’s initial article focused on YouTube accounts which she had found to have gained more attention due to her coverage of the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial. She also made a profit from these spikes in traffic. As she stated, Lorenz had not contacted some accounts from those they claimed to have been reached out to. This resulted in the paper editing her piece, and issuing two corrections. This led her to accuse her editors of incorrectly placing the information within her piece.

Wemple examined the aftermath. He focused on two parts of this story as he analysed it. The claims of editors inserting Lorenz’s claim that Lorenz made contact and The Post’s current policy that errors should never be attributed to editors or reporters. Wemple provides a detailed explanation of the second point.

Blaming editors when they make mistakes can sound like a naive act. It happens sometimes at U.S. media outlets. Lorenz’s pointed tua culpa is at odds with the spirit of Post policy, however. And in this case, it received approval from The Post’s masthead, according to a source at the paper. A Post spokesperson says, “We provided input that we asked she take into consideration.”

While she may have disagreed with The Post policy, she seems to have been allowed to. This action is not about the larger issue. It is about the fact that the article contains inaccuracies and the origins of those inaccuracies. Although it might seem questionable to assign blame given the standards at the paper’s newspaper, accuracy is still questionable.

Lorenz is the one who resorts to these situations. lashing out and claiming victimhoodOn social media, she provided an error regarding contacting sources. She tries to blame an editor for the incorrect contact with sources, but her furious Twitter fury caused her to admit that she had not reached the source in question until now. After publication. She wrote, “emphasis added”

 “Once the story had gone live, I reached out to both YouTubers mentioned in that sentence just to be extra sure there wasn’t some sort of commentary they wanted to add. Neither provided comment for the story and both continued to post about me.”

This is in direct conflict with CorrectionAccording to a statement by, only one account was opened. PriorTo publication. Wemple tried to clarify this issue, but it turned out that his paper wasn’t willing to give any additional details.

We’ve asked The Post for clarification on this point, because it matters: If The Post can’t nail down the facts in an editor’s note, where else should we trust it to do so? “That stands as is,” says a Post spokesperson. “We won’t be able to get into what the internal discussions were.”

As a result, the newspaper has found itself in a conflict with the information provided by the journalist at the centre of this scandal. The paper refuses to discuss the matter with one of its columnists. And, in keeping with the increasing need to rectify printed proclamations, Wemple’s column now sports a very lengthy Latest At the top.

The new article details how a group of editors organized a meeting to discuss this issue. In a column, The Daily Beast stated that the controversial content regarding contacting sources was created by David Malitz (Deputy Features Editor). The Beast claimed that Malitz was not at risk of losing his chance to become Features Editor. Wemple did not make any comment on the matter.

And on cue, in response to Wemple’s reporting on the story, Lorenz took to Twitter to respond. You can see her trademark victimization.

Taylor Lorenz has begun tweeting. Appears to make a sneaky swipe at @ErikWempleToday’s article is about his error-filled reporting. pic.twitter.com/yrrCAGzGlr

— Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) June 10, 2022

Note how many woke terms are checked off on the Victim Bingo card — extremists, harassment, attack, radicalized, GamerGate. Lorenz uses the hysterical vocabulary to address the main issue, rather than providing facts. 

As it stands, an editor was identified as being the source for one of the inaccuracies found in Lorenz’s article. This is despite Lorenz’s declaration to the contrary. There are no explanations for why the editor would add details not given by Lorenz. 

The paper’s authorities refused to provide any explanations when faced with this contradiction from the columnist. It is even more funny that the authorities at the paper refuse to elaborate on Taylor Lorenz’s violations of an internal policy. 

It is hard to know what the best outcome is with Lorenz employed by The Post. Should she be released for the betterment of the paper’s foundering respectability, or do we want her to remain and watch as she further renders its reputation? You may have different mileage.