The Washington Post

== Criticism and controversies ==
{{Multiple issues|section=yes|
{{Recentism|date=May 2022}}
{{Criticism section|date=August 2023}}
}}
==="Jimmy's World" fabrication===
{{Further|Janet Cooke}}
In September 1980, a Sunday feature story appeared on the front page of the ''Post'' titled "Jimmy's World" in which reporter [[Janet Cooke]] wrote a profile of the life of an eight-year-old heroin [[Substance dependence|addict]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/09/28/jimmys-world/605f237a-7330-4a69-8433-b6da4c519120/|title=Jimmy's World|author=Janet Cooke|date=September 28, 1980|newspaper=The Washington Post|page=A1|access-date=July 9, 2016|author-link=Janet Cooke|archive-date=August 22, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160822081435/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/09/28/jimmys-world/605f237a-7330-4a69-8433-b6da4c519120/|url-status=live}}</ref> Although some within the ''Post'' doubted the story's veracity, the paper's editors defended it, and assistant managing editor [[Bob Woodward]] submitted the story to the [[Pulitzer Prize#Board|Pulitzer Prize Board]] at [[Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism|Columbia University]] for consideration.<ref>Bill Green (April 19, 1981), [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/04/19/the-players-it-wasnt-a-game/545f7157-5228-47b6-8959-fcfcfa8f08eb/ "THE PLAYERS: It Wasn't a Game"], ''The Washington Post'': ""I was blown away by the story," Woodward said. . . . "Jimmy" was created, lived and vanished in Woodward's shop. . . . Woodward supported the [Pulitzer] nomination strongly. . . ."I think that the decision to nominate the story for a Pulitzer is of minimal consequence. I also think that it won is of little consequence. It is a brilliant story -- fake and fraud that it is. It would be absurd for me [Woodward] or any other editor to review the authenticity or accuracy of stories that are nominated for prizes."" {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210526031337/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/04/19/the-players-it-wasnt-a-game/545f7157-5228-47b6-8959-fcfcfa8f08eb/ |date=May 26, 2021 }}.</ref> Cooke was awarded the [[Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing]] on April 13, 1981. The story was subsequently found to be a complete fabrication, and the Pulitzer was returned.<ref>Mike Sager (June 1, 2016), [https://www.cjr.org/the_feature/the_fabulist_who_changed_journalism.php "The fabulist who changed journalism"], ''[[Columbia Journalism Review]]''. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181004133952/https://www.cjr.org/the_feature/the_fabulist_who_changed_journalism.php |date=October 4, 2018 }}.</ref>

=== Private "salon" solicitation ===
In July 2009, in the midst of an intense debate over [[Health care reforms proposed during the Obama administration|health care reform]], ''[[The Politico]]'' reported that a health-care lobbyist had received an "astonishing" offer of access to the ''Post's'' "health-care reporting and editorial staff."<ref>Michael Calderone and Mike Allen (July 2, 2009), [https://www.politico.com/story/2009/07/wapo-cancels-lobbyist-event-024441? "WaPo cancels lobbyist event"], ''Politico''. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181011214548/https://www.politico.com/story/2009/07/wapo-cancels-lobbyist-event-024441 |date=October 11, 2018 }}.</ref> ''Post'' publisher [[Katharine Weymouth]] had planned a series of exclusive dinner parties or "salons" at her private residence, to which she had invited prominent lobbyists, trade group members, politicians, and business people.<ref name="nytimes.com">Richard Pérez-Peña (July 2, 2009), [https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/business/media/03post.html "Pay-for-Chat Plan Falls Flat at Washington Post"], ''The New York Times'': "Postscript: Oct. 17, 2009 . . . Mr. [[Marcus W. Brauchli|Brauchli]] now says that he did indeed know that the dinners were being promoted as "off the record," . . . " {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180903051439/https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/business/media/03post.html |date=September 3, 2018 }}.</ref> Participants were to be charged $25,000 to sponsor a single salon, and $250,000 for 11 sessions, with the events being closed to the public and to the non-''Post'' press.<ref name=NageshAtlantic>Gautham Nagesh (July 2, 2009) [https://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2009/07/wapo-salons-sell-access-to-lobbyists/20535/ "WaPo Salons Sell Access to Lobbyists"], ''The Atlantic''. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181011214904/https://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2009/07/wapo-salons-sell-access-to-lobbyists/20535/ |date=October 11, 2018 }}.</ref> ''Politico''{{'}}s revelation gained a somewhat mixed response in Washington<ref>{{cite news |url-status=dead |first1=Ezra |last1=Klein |date=July 6, 2009 |url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/can_the_washington_post_salons.html |title=Can The Washington Post Salons Be a Good Thing? |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211018051935/http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/can_the_washington_post_salons.html |archive-date=October 18, 2021 |newspaper=The Washington Post |quote=The Washington Post really shouldn't need [[lobbyists]] for the health-care industry to act as our [[ombudsmen]].}}</ref><ref>Dan Kennedy (July 8, 2009), [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/08/washington-post-weymouth-salon "Selling out the Washington Post"], ''The Guardian'': "Perhaps the most shocking thing about Washington Post publisher [[Katharine Weymouth]]'s misbegotten plan to sell access to her journalists at off-the-record dinners in her own home is that so many found it so shocking." {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211009063911/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/08/washington-post-weymouth-salon |date=October 9, 2021 }}.</ref><ref>Dan Kennedy (October 20, 2009), [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/20/marcus-brauchli-washington-post-salons "Truth, lies and the Washington Post"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211024133233/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/20/marcus-brauchli-washington-post-salons |date=October 24, 2021 }}, ''The Guardian'': 
"If only we'd known that Washington Post executive editor [[Marcus Brauchli]] was talking about the '[[Chatham House rule]]' last summer when he was explaining what he knew about those now-infamous salons."</ref> as it gave the impression that the parties' sole purpose was to allow insiders to purchase face time with ''Post'' staff.

Almost immediately following the disclosure, Weymouth canceled the salons, saying, "This should never have happened." White House counsel [[Gregory B. Craig]] reminded officials that under [[Honest Leadership and Open Government Act|federal ethics rules]], they need advance approval for such events. ''Post'' Executive Editor [[Marcus Brauchli]], who was named on the flier as one of the salon's "Hosts and Discussion Leaders", said he was "appalled" by the plan, adding, "It suggests that access to ''Washington Post'' journalists was available for purchase."<ref name=KurtzPost>Howard Kurtz (July 3, 2009), [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070201563.html?hpid=topnews "Washington Post Publisher Cancels Planned Policy Dinners After Outcry"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170102075901/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070201563.html?hpid=topnews |date=January 2, 2017 }}, ''The Washington Post''</ref><ref name="nytimes.com"/>

===''China Daily'' advertising supplements===
{{Further|China Daily}}
Dating back to 2011, ''The Washington Post'' began to include "China Watch" advertising supplements provided by ''[[China Daily]]'', an English language newspaper owned by the [[Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party]], on the print and online editions. Although the header to the online "China Watch" section included the text "A Paid Supplement to The Washington Post", [[James Fallows]] of ''[[The Atlantic]]'' suggested that the notice was not clear enough for most readers to see.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/|title=Official Chinese Propaganda: Now Online from the WaPo!|last=Fallows|first=James|work=The Atlantic|date=February 3, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110207020433/https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/|archive-date=February 7, 2011|url-status=live}}</ref> Distributed to the ''Post'' and multiple newspapers around the world, the "China Watch" advertising supplements range from four to eight pages and appear at least monthly. According to a 2018 report by ''[[The Guardian]]'', "China Watch" uses "a didactic, old-school approach to propaganda."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/07/china-plan-for-global-media-dominance-propaganda-xi-jinping|title=Inside China's audacious global propaganda campaign|last1=Lim|first1=Louisa|last2=Bergin|first2=Julia|work=The Guardian|date=December 7, 2018|access-date=March 21, 2020|archive-date=March 10, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200310193251/https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/07/china-plan-for-global-media-dominance-propaganda-xi-jinping|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2020, a report by [[Freedom House]], "Beijing's Global Megaphone", criticized the ''Post'' and other newspapers for distributing "China Watch".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/beijings-global-megaphone|title=Beijing's Global Megaphone|last=Cook|first=Sarah|publisher=Freedom House|access-date=March 21, 2020|archive-date=March 21, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200321225216/https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/beijings-global-megaphone|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-is-waging-an-aggressive-propaganda-campaign-to-distort-media-landscape-report-warns/2020/01/15/30fd4d58-374a-11ea-a1ff-c48c1d59a4a1_story.html|title=China is waging a global propaganda war to silence critics abroad, report warns|last=Fifield|first=Anna|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=January 15, 2020|access-date=March 21, 2020|archive-date=October 27, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201027022601/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-is-waging-an-aggressive-propaganda-campaign-to-distort-media-landscape-report-warns/2020/01/15/30fd4d58-374a-11ea-a1ff-c48c1d59a4a1_story.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In the same year, 35 Republican members of the U.S. Congress wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice in February 2020 calling for an investigation of potential [[Foreign Agents Registration Act|FARA]] violations by ''China Daily''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3049627/us-lawmakers-push-justice-department-investigate-china-daily|title=US lawmakers push Justice Department to investigate China Daily, label the newspaper a foreign agent|last=Magnier|first=Mark|work=South China Morning Post|date=February 8, 2020|access-date=March 21, 2020|archive-date=August 11, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200811204030/https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3049627/us-lawmakers-push-justice-department-investigate-china-daily|url-status=live}}</ref> The letter named an article that appeared in the ''Post'', "Education Flaws Linked to Hong Kong Unrest", as an example of "articles [that] serve as cover for China's atrocities, including&nbsp;... its support for the [[2019–20 Hong Kong protests#Mainland China reactions|crackdown in Hong Kong]]."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.rubio.senate.gov/rubio-joins-cotton-banks-colleagues-in-urging-doj-to-investigate-china-daily/|title=Rubio Joins Cotton, Banks, Colleagues in Urging DOJ to Investigate China Daily|publisher=Office of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio|access-date=March 21, 2020|date=February 7, 2020|archive-date=March 22, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200322053509/https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/2/rubio-joins-cotton-banks-colleagues-in-urging-doj-to-investigate-china-daily|url-status=live}}</ref> According to ''The Guardian,'' the ''Post'' had already stopped running "China Watch" in 2019.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Waterson|first1=Jim|last2=Jones|first2=Dean Sterling|date=April 14, 2020|title=Daily Telegraph stops publishing section paid for by China|language=en-GB|work=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/14/daily-telegraph-stops-publishing-section-paid-for-by-china|issn=0261-3077|access-date=November 23, 2020|archive-date=April 15, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200415012159/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/14/daily-telegraph-stops-publishing-section-paid-for-by-china|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Employee relations===
In 1986, five employees, including ''Newspaper Guild'' unit chairman Thomas R. Sherwood and assistant Maryland editor [[Claudia Levy]], sued ''The Washington Post'' for overtime pay, stating that the newspaper had claimed that budgets did not allow for overtime wages.<ref>{{cite news |title=Washington Post Faces Suit Charging Abuse of Overtime |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/02/us/washington-post-faces-suit-charging-abuse-of-overtime.html |work=[[The New York Times]] |agency=[[Associated Press]] |date=October 2, 1986 |page=A20 |access-date=December 15, 2021 |archive-date=December 15, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211215040116/https://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/02/us/washington-post-faces-suit-charging-abuse-of-overtime.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

In June 2018, over 400 employees of ''The Washington Post'' signed an open letter to the owner Jeff Bezos demanding "fair wages; fair benefits for retirement, family leave and health care; and a fair amount of job security." The open letter was accompanied by video testimonials from employees, who alleged "shocking pay practices" despite record growth in subscriptions at the newspaper, with salaries rising an average of $10 per week, which the letter claimed was less than half the rate of inflation. The petition followed on a year of unsuccessful negotiations between ''The Washington Post'' [[Guild]] and upper management over pay and benefit increases.<ref>{{cite web| author=Isobel Asher Hamilton| url=https://www.businessinsider.com/washington-post-staff-sent-fair-pay-petition-to-jeff-bezos-2018-6| title=More than 400 Washington Post staffers wrote an open letter to Jeff Bezos calling out his 'shocking' pay practices| website=Business Insider| date=June 15, 2018| access-date=June 18, 2018| archive-date=June 18, 2018| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180618082731/http://www.businessinsider.com/washington-post-staff-sent-fair-pay-petition-to-jeff-bezos-2018-6| url-status=live}}</ref>

In March 2022, reporter Paul Farhi was suspended for five days without pay after he tweeted about the publication's policy on bylines and datelines regarding Russian-based stories.<ref name=Guild2022>{{cite web |last=Beaujon |first=Andrew |title=The Washington Post Suspended a Media Reporter for Reporting on the Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonian.com/2022/08/19/the-washington-post-suspended-a-media-reporter-for-reporting-on-the-washington-post/ |publisher=[[Washingtonian (magazine)|Washingtonian]] |date=August 19, 2022 |access-date=March 30, 2023 |archive-date=September 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230901085442/https://www.washingtonian.com/2022/08/19/the-washington-post-suspended-a-media-reporter-for-reporting-on-the-washington-post/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

====Felicia Sonmez====
{{Further|Felicia Sonmez}}
In 2020, ''The Post'' suspended reporter [[Felicia Sonmez]] after she posted a series of tweets about the [[Kobe Bryant sexual assault case|2003 rape allegation against basketball star Kobe Bryant]] after [[2020 Calabasas helicopter crash|Bryant's death]]. She was reinstated after over 200 ''Post'' journalists wrote an open letter criticizing the paper's decision.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Abrams |first=Rachel |date=January 27, 2020 |title=Washington Post Suspends a Reporter After Her Tweets on Kobe Bryant |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/business/media/kobe-bryant-washington-post-felicia-sonmez.html |access-date=June 12, 2022 |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=June 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220612042424/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/business/media/kobe-bryant-washington-post-felicia-sonmez.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In July 2021, Sonmez sued ''The Post'' and several of its top editors, alleging workplace discrimination; the suit was dismissed in March 2022, with the court determining that Sonmez had failed to make plausible claims.<ref name=Klein>Charlotte Klein, [https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/judge-tosses-reporter-felicia-sonmezs-discrimination-case-against-the-washington-post Judge Tosses Reporter Felicia Sonmez's Discrimination Case Against The Washington Post] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220608033647/https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/judge-tosses-reporter-felicia-sonmezs-discrimination-case-against-the-washington-post |date=June 8, 2022 }}, ''Vanity Fair'' (March 28, 2022).</ref>

In June 2022, Sonmez engaged in a Twitter feud with fellow ''Post'' staffers [[David Weigel]], criticizing him over what he later described as "an offensive joke", and Jose A. Del Real, who accused Sonmez of "engaging in repeated and targeted public harassment of a colleague".<ref name=BarrEditor>Jeremy Barr, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/07/buzbee-memo-washington-post-sonmez-weigel-social-media/ Post editor Buzbee warns staff on Twitter strife: 'Be constructive and collegial'], ''Washington Post'' (June 7, 2022).</ref> Following the feud, the newspaper suspended Weigel for a month for violating the company's social media guidelines, and the newspaper's executive editor [[Sally Buzbee]] sent out a newsroom-wide memorandum directing employees to "Be constructive and collegial" in their interactions with colleagues.<ref name=BarrEditor/> The newspaper fired Sonmez, writing in an emailed termination letter that she had engaged in "misconduct that includes insubordination, maligning your co-workers online and violating ''The Post''{{'}}s standards on workplace collegiality and inclusivity."<ref name=SchwartzmanBarr>{{Cite news |author=Paul Schwartzman & Jeremy Barr |title=Felicia Sonmez terminated by The Washington Post after Twitter dispute |language=en-US |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/06/09/felicia-sonmez-washington-post/ |access-date=June 12, 2022 |issn=0190-8286 |archive-date=June 10, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220610011233/https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/06/09/felicia-sonmez-washington-post/ |url-status=live }}</ref> ''The Post'' faced criticism from the Post Guild after refusing to go to arbitration over the dismissal, stating that the expiration of the Post's contract "does not relieve the Post from its contractual obligation to arbitrate grievances filed prior to expiration."<ref name=Guild2022/>

=== Lawsuit by Covington Catholic High School student ===
{{Main|2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation}}
In 2019, [[Covington Catholic High School]] student Nick Sandmann filed a defamation lawsuit against the ''Post'', alleging that it libeled him in seven articles regarding the [[January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation]] between Covington students and the [[Indigenous Peoples March]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Farhi|first=Paul|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-washington-post-sued-by-family-of-covington-catholic-teenager/2019/02/19/aa252be4-349c-11e9-854a-7a14d7fec96a_story.html|title=The Washington Post sued by family of Covington Catholic teenager|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=February 19, 2019|access-date=February 19, 2019|archive-date=February 20, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190220065023/https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-washington-post-sued-by-family-of-covington-catholic-teenager/2019/02/19/aa252be4-349c-11e9-854a-7a14d7fec96a_story.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Chamberlain|first=Samuel|title=Covington student's legal team sues Washington Post|url=https://www.foxnews.com/us/covington-high-students-legal-team-sues-washington-post|work=Fox News|date=February 19, 2019|access-date=February 20, 2019|archive-date=February 20, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190220150737/https://www.foxnews.com/us/covington-high-students-legal-team-sues-washington-post|url-status=live}}</ref> A federal judge dismissed the case, ruling that 30 of the 33 statements in the ''Post'' that Sandmann alleged were libelous were not, but allowed Sandmann to file an amended complaint as to three statements.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2489395001/|title=Judge to allow portion of Nick Sandmann lawsuit against Washington Post to continue|last=Knight|first=Cameron|date=October 28, 2019|website=USA Today|language=en-US|access-date=October 29, 2019|archive-date=October 29, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191029013009/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2489395001/|url-status=live}}</ref> After Sandmann's lawyers amended the complaint, the suit was reopened on October 28, 2019.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Re|first=Gregg|date=October 28, 2019|title=Judge reopens Covington Catholic High student's defamation suit against Washington Post|url=https://www.foxnews.com/us/nick-sandmann-covington-catholic-case-reopened|access-date=October 29, 2019|website=Fox News|language=en-US|archive-date=October 29, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191029000008/https://www.foxnews.com/us/nick-sandmann-covington-catholic-case-reopened|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Knight|first=Cameron|date=October 28, 2019|title=Judge to allow portion of Nick Sandmann lawsuit against Washington Post to continue|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2489395001/|access-date=October 29, 2019|website=USA Today|language=en-US|archive-date=October 29, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191029013009/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2489395001/|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2020, ''The Post'' settled the lawsuit brought by Sandmann for an undisclosed amount.<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|title=Nick Sandmann settles $250M lawsuit with the Washington Post|url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nick-sandmann-settles-250m-lawsuit-with-the-washington-post/ar-BB179mYc|access-date=July 24, 2020|website=MSN |archive-date=August 30, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200830212938/https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nick-sandmann-settles-250m-lawsuit-with-the-washington-post/ar-BB179mYc|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Controversial op-eds and columns===
Several ''Washington Post'' op-eds and columns have prompted criticism, including a number of comments on race by columnist [[Richard Cohen (columnist)|Richard Cohen]] over the years,<ref>Andrew Beaujon, [https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/09/23/richard-cohen-leaves-the-washington-post/ Richard Cohen Leaves the Washington Post] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809103548/https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/09/23/richard-cohen-leaves-the-washington-post/ |date=August 9, 2020 }}, ''Washington Post'' (September 23, 2019): "In the years since he displayed a remarkable ability to survive at the paper despite ...frequently stepping in it with regard to race, like the time he wrote that 'People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children; or the time that he wrote sympathetically about the man who killed Trayvon Martin..."</ref><ref>Maya K. Francis, [https://www.phillymag.com/news/2013/11/13/richard-cohen-bill-de-blasio-family-race/ Richard Cohen's Been Gag-Worthy on Race for Years] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200804234944/https://www.phillymag.com/news/2013/11/13/richard-cohen-bill-de-blasio-family-race/ |date=August 4, 2020 }}, ''Philadelphia Magazine'' (November 13, 2013).</ref> and a controversial 2014 column on [[campus sexual assault]] by [[George Will]].<ref>Hadas Gold, [https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/06/george-will-slammed-for-sexual-assault-column-190088 George Will slammed for sexual assault column] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809070844/https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/06/george-will-slammed-for-sexual-assault-column-190088 |date=August 9, 2020 }}, ''Politico'' (June 10, 2014).</ref><ref>Alyssa Rosenberg, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2014/06/10/george-wills-distasteful-conclusions-about-sexual-assault/ George Will's distasteful conclusions about sexual assault] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210201053448/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2014/06/10/george-wills-distasteful-conclusions-about-sexual-assault/ |date=February 1, 2021 }}, ''Washington Post'' (June 10, 2014).</ref>

The ''Post''{{'}}s decision to run an op-ed by [[Mohammed Ali al-Houthi]], a leader in [[Yemen]]'s [[Houthi movement]], was criticized by some activists on the basis that it provided a platform to an "anti-Western and [[antisemitic]] group supported by Iran."<ref name="slam2">{{cite news|url=https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/washington-post-slammed-for-op-ed-by-antisemitic-houthi-leader-571537|title='Washington Post' slammed for op-ed by antisemitic Houthi leader|date=November 10, 2018|publisher=The Jerusalem Post|access-date=May 31, 2020|archive-date=May 23, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200523085349/https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/washington-post-slammed-for-op-ed-by-antisemitic-houthi-leader-571537|url-status=live}}</ref> The headline of a 2020 op-ed titled "It's time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president" was changed, without an editor's note, after backlash.<ref>{{Cite news|website=Fox News|title=Washington Post slammed, changes headline after op-ed calls for 'elites' to have 'bigger say in choosing the president'|url=https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-changes-headline-after-op-ed-calls-for-elites-have-bigger-say-choosing-president|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211017100242/https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-changes-headline-after-op-ed-calls-for-elites-have-bigger-say-choosing-president|date=February 19, 2020|archive-date=October 17, 2021|last=Wolfsuhn|first=Joseph}}</ref>

In 2022, actor [[Johnny Depp]] successfully sued ex-wife [[Amber Heard]] for an op-ed she wrote in ''The Washington Post'' where she described herself as a public figure representing domestic abuse two years after she had publicly accused him of domestic violence.<ref>{{cite news |last=Heard |first=Amber |title=Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ive-seen-how-institutions-protect-men-accused-of-abuse-heres-what-we-can-do/2018/12/18/71fd876a-02ed-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=December 18, 2018 |access-date=March 23, 2023 |archive-date=April 12, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412184930/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ive-seen-how-institutions-protect-men-accused-of-abuse-heres-what-we-can-do/2018/12/18/71fd876a-02ed-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Bryant |first1=Kenzie |title=Johnny Depp Wins His Defamation Case Against Ex-Wife Amber Heard |website=[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]] |url=https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2022/06/johnny-depp-amber-heard-defamation-case-verdict |date=June 1, 2022 |access-date=March 23, 2023 |archive-date=September 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230901085450/https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2022/06/johnny-depp-amber-heard-defamation-case-verdict |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Criticism by elected officials===
Former president [[Donald Trump]] repeatedly spoke out against ''The Washington Post'' on [[Donald Trump on social media|his Twitter account]],<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Shear |first1=Michael D. |last2=Haberman |first2=Maggie |last3=Confessore |first3=Nicholas |last4=Yourish |first4=Karen |last5=Buchanan |first5=Larry |last6=Collins |first6=Keith |date=November 2, 2019 |title=How Trump Reshaped the Presidency in Over 11,000 Tweets |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/02/us/politics/trump-twitter-presidency.html |access-date=March 25, 2022 |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=May 1, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200501184836/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/02/us/politics/trump-twitter-presidency.html |url-status=live }}</ref> having "tweeted or retweeted criticism of the paper, tying it to Amazon more than 20 times since his campaign for president" by August 2018.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Montanaro |first=Dominico |date=August 13, 2019 |title=Bernie Sanders Again Attacks Amazon — This Time Pulling In 'The Washington Post' |language=en |work=[[NPR]] |url=https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750800062/sanders-again-attacks-amazon-this-time-pulling-in-the-washington-post |access-date=March 25, 2022 |archive-date=November 27, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191127104040/https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750800062/sanders-again-attacks-amazon-this-time-pulling-in-the-washington-post |url-status=live }}</ref> In addition to often attacking the paper itself, Trump used Twitter to blast various ''Post'' journalists and columnists.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Lee |first1=Jasmine C. |last2=Quealy |first2=Kevin |date=January 28, 2016 |title=The 598 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html,%20https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html |access-date=March 25, 2022 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

During the [[2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries]], Senator [[Bernie Sanders]] repeatedly criticized ''The Washington Post'', saying that its coverage of his campaign was slanted against him and attributing this to [[Jeff Bezos]]' purchase of the newspaper.<ref>{{cite news|author=[[Katrina vanden Heuvel]]|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/20/bernie-sanders-has-smart-critique-corporate-media-bias/|date=August 20, 2019|title=Bernie Sanders Has a Smart Critique of Corporate Media Bias|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=December 22, 2019|archive-date=January 1, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200101015305/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/20/bernie-sanders-has-smart-critique-corporate-media-bias/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Russia Is Said to Be Interfering to Aid Sanders in Democratic Primaries |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-russia.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200221233009/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-russia.html |archive-date=February 21, 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |work=The New York Times |date=February 21, 2020}}</ref> Sanders' criticism was echoed by the socialist magazine ''[[Jacobin (magazine)|Jacobin]]''<ref>{{Cite web |last=Higginbotham |first=Tim |date=August 27, 2019 |title=The Washington Post's War on Bernie Continues |url=https://jacobin.com/2019/08/washington-post-bernie-sanders-media-2020-coverage |access-date=March 25, 2022 |website=Jacobin |language=en-US |archive-date=March 25, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220325142202/https://jacobinmag.com/2019/08/washington-post-bernie-sanders-media-2020-coverage |url-status=live }}</ref> and the progressive journalist watchdog [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/15/if-youre-looking-evidence-wapo-media-bias-against-bernie-sanders-here-it|title=If You're Looking for Evidence of WaPo Media Bias Against Bernie Sanders, Here It Is|website=Common Dreams|access-date=May 22, 2020|archive-date=May 15, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200515202750/https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/15/if-youre-looking-evidence-wapo-media-bias-against-bernie-sanders-here-it|url-status=live}}</ref> ''Washington Post'' executive editor [[Marty Baron]] responded by saying that Sanders' criticism was "baseless and conspiratorial".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Darcy |first1=Oliver |last2=Grayer |first2=Annie |last3=Krieg |first3=Greg |date=August 13, 2019 |title=Washington Post editor responds to Bernie Sanders: Your 'conspiracy theory' is wrong |work=CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/12/politics/bernie-sanders-washington-post/index.html |access-date=November 17, 2019 |archive-date=November 30, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191130155249/https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/12/politics/bernie-sanders-washington-post/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref>