‘TALK TO YOUR EDITORIAL BOARD’: WaPo Readers Lambast ‘Pathetically Late’ Response to DOJ Seizing Its Reporter’s Electronics

AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File

Readers of The Washington Post had strong reactions to its report that its attorneys had successfully obtained a court ruling blocking the federal government from searching electronic devices seized from one of its reporters — but the comments were overwhelmingly critical of the Post.

On Jan. 14, Post staff reporter Hannah Natanson’s home in Virginia was searched by FBI agents pursuant to a search warrant related to an investigation into into Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a Maryland-based system administrator with top-secret clearance who is accused of improperly accessing classified intelligence reports and taking them home. Agents seized Natanson’s cell phone, Garmin smartwatch, and two laptops, one that belongs to the Post and one that is hers.

Wednesday, the Post filed a motion seeking the return of the materials seized from Natanson’s home, or at least barring the government from searching the devices until the issue could be settled in court, arguing that this was an “extraordinary” search that “flouts the First Amendment and ignores federal statutory safeguards for journalists.”

A few hours later, U.S. Magistrate Judge William B. Porter ruled in the Post’s favor, at least partially, ordering the federal government to refrain from searching Natanson’s electronic devices until the litigation was resolved. In his order, Porter wrote that he found that the Post and Natanson “demonstrated good cause in their filings to maintain the status quo” until a hearing on the merits could be held, and scheduled such a hearing for early February.

Post justice reporter Perry Stein reported on the initial motion filed by the newspaper’s attorneys and then the judge’s ruling.

The comments section of Stein’s article was far more critical than congratulatory, however, with Post readers lambasting the paper for the continued silence of owner Jeff Bezos regarding the seizure of Natanson’s devices, the perception that Bezos’ management was nudging the Post to be unduly deferential to the Trump administration, and other opinions that the paper was lacking in free speech defender bona fides.

The Post’s AI-generated summary of the comments noted the “skepticism” and “disappointment” voiced by readers:

The comments reflect a strong sentiment that the Washington Post’s actions to demand the return of seized materials are both necessary and overdue, with many expressing skepticism about the Post’s previous relationship with the Trump administration. Commenters criticize the perceived delay in the Post’s response and question the effectiveness of their actions, suggesting that the materials have likely already been accessed. There is a recurring theme of disappointment in the Post’s editorial decisions and its perceived alignment with Trump, with some commenters expressing hope that the Post will now more vigorously defend First Amendment rights.

Scrolling through the nearly 500 comments that have been posted at the time this article is being written, the tone is overwhelmingly critical. Many of the accounts are identified as longtime Post readers, with accounts being registered years ago (Mediaite observed numerous ones registered in the late 2010s; most were at least a few years old).

A sampling of comments is below.

Getting in bed with Donald did not protect WaPo. When will they learn?!

“Washington Post demands government return materials seized from reporter.” Washington Post readers demand Post return to quality reporting seized from its reporters by Bezos

Wow. Jeff is allowing you to take a stand against the administration. That actually is the lede.

If only the Washington Post had some way to hold Trump accountable for his abuses of power.

Hopefully, American journalists are starting to understand that they have to treat Trump the way they treat Putin and use encryption to protect their reporting.

When will the owner of the Washington Post realize that Trump is not his friend?

On the plus side, fighting for the Washington Post’s first amendment rights is good. On the negative side, the Washington Post Editorial Board must fight for our democracy rather than lower taxes for the wealthy. The transactional view the WaPo Editorial Board has taken with respect to all things Trump has done absolutely nothing to protect the Post or our democracy from very stable genius DJT. If there is no moral compass behind the opinions of the WaPo Editorial Board there is no reason that anyone should follow your opinions.

As Mark Carney, the Canadian Prime Minister said yesterday in a speech at Davos [and received a rare standing ovation] “Compliance does not ensure safety.” The Washington Post and Bezos have just been given a reminder of that. One of many to come. Trump and his weaponized DOJ will deal with the media, the same as they have done with protesters in Minnesota.

All that kissing up to Trump got the Washington Post more bad treatment.

Immediate emergency injunction should have been requested about 5 minutes after the seizure. This is way too late and almost performative at this point.

Bezos’ silence is deafening.

WaPo is pathetically late in coming to support their intrepid reporter. No surprise though, there are too many on the board who are Trump supplicants.

Wait Bezo you didn’t get immunity from Trump for your huge donations or was the immunity just for Amazon.

There must have been a revolt in the newsroom. Good.

You can come up these flashy headlines but we (longtime subscribers of wapo) are sure that Nytimes is the only newspaper that is willing to take the fight to the White House. Washington post of watergate times is dead.

Acting in defense of the principles of your profession is what you are supposed to do. At one time, WaPo knew that.

Gosh. Maybe the Washington Post (Jeff Bezos) should have taken a stand and endorsed the person that wouldn’t have allowed this…

Hey WaPo—how’s the kowtowing to Trump going??

TALK TO YOUR EDITORIAL BOARD – if they can hear you knocking over all the cheering.

Come on, Bezos, that new White House ballroom is not going to pay for itself.

When they “came for you” – you finally spoke up. Disgraceful.

Wapo is so incredibly Vichy washy

Well good for the Post. Now how about you stop supporting the felon who initiated this attack on the first amendment in the first place.

“I didn’t think the leopard would eat MY face!” Give us a break, WaPo. You’d hand the records over on a silver platter if Bezos told you to.

This court filing should have been done the day the FBI seized the computers and all of the other material from Natanson’s home. Bezos needs to realize that Trump will never be a friend of his, the press, or anyone else. He and his minions are out simply to destroy our freedoms, especially those contained in the Bill of Rights. Nothing Bezos does or says will ever placate Trump or the people like him. The worst of it is, Bezos and the Washington Post could have been out front investigating Trump and his minions. They also should have kept all of their investigative data better secured too.

Insane that it took the Post a full week to file in court. A week for government agents to peruse Natanson’s confidential sources before even ASKING for a TRO.

This is what happens when a once honorable newspaper sells its soul to the devil.

The WAPO editorial board of being Trump friendly has zero reward, only helps “democracy die in darkness”. I hope WAPO wins the lawsuit. And I hope someday a return to the greatness of the WAPO of the past!

Read the article (and the comments) at The Washington Post.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!