The inside story of the Murdoch editor taking on Donald Trump
It was Tuesday 15 July. The Wall Street Journal had approached Trump's team, stating it planned to publish allegations that Trump had composed a crude poem and doodle as part of a collection compiled for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday.
The claim would have been damaging at any moment, but the timing was terrible for the president. The Epstein issue was developing into the biggest crisis of his presidency. Strident Maga supporters had been angered by the Trump administration's refusal to release government files relating to the late sex offender.
Trump and his loyal press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, reached for the nuclear option. From Air Force One, they called the Journal's British editor-in-chief, Emma Tucker.
They turned up the heat. Trump fumed that the letter was fake. Drawing wasn't his thing. Threats were made to sue, a course of action he had previously unleashed against other perceived media enemies.
Washington DC began to hum with rumours that the Journal had a hot story on its hands. When no article materialised on Wednesday, some insiders perceived a growing confidence within the White House that their rearguard action had killed the story. They were wrong.
DC's gossip mill had reached fever pitch by Thursday afternoon. The article finally emerged in the early evening. The city collectively stopped to read.
In the hours that followed publication, the tension intensified. Trump revealed he had confronted Tucker, stating the story was 'false, malicious, and defamatory'. By Friday, he had filed a lawsuit suing the Journal and its owners for at least $10bn (£7.6bn).
Tucker was at the centre of a maelstrom of stress and political pressure. It was the greatest challenge of her two and a half years heading the Journal, but far from the first.
Two months in, having been parachuted in from London, she was fronting a campaign to have the reporter Evan Gershkovich returned from a Russian prison. She had also faced denunciations from journalists as she pushed through a modernisation drive that included brutal layoffs. Her plans focused on giving stories a sharper edge. On that metric, the Trump call suggested she was overachieving.
Throughout her rise, an enigmatic quality has surrounded Tucker. Friends, colleagues and even some critical employees describe an amiable, fun and disarmingly grounded person. Many regarded her ability to retain such qualities in the treacherous terrain of the Murdoch empire as uncanny. The puzzle is exacerbated by the assumption she does not share the rightwing, pro-Brexit views of Rupert Murdoch, News Corp's legendary mogul.
Yet Murdoch doesn't hand the Journal to just anyone. While the pro-Maga Fox News is his empire's cash cow, the Journal is his prized possession, giving him power and respectability in wider US political circles, as the Times does in the UK. So, why Tucker?
The answer, according to people who have worked with her, is her possession of two qualities Murdoch rates highly: a willingness to make unpopular decisions for the sake of his businesses and a lust for a politically contentious scoop.
Lionel Barber, a former Financial Times editor who also worked with Tucker for the FT in Brussels, said: 'She has a very sharp nose for a good news story – always did.'
Tucker edited the University of Oxford's student magazine, the Isis, and joined the FT as a graduate trainee. 'She was a very convivial colleague, great company and good on a night out, but you knew when it came down to the work, she would nail it,' said a colleague. 'Very hard-nosed.'
After stints in Brussels and Berlin, she won a powerful ally in Robert Thomson, then the FT's foreign editor. Thomson became a close friend to Murdoch, a fellow Australian, while working in the US for the FT. Thomson jumped ship to edit the Times of London in 2002 and in 2008 was dispatched to New York to oversee Murdoch's freshly acquired Journal. Before he went, Thomson helped lure Tucker to the Times, where she eventually became deputy editor.
It was her elevation to editor of the Sunday Times in 2020 that seems to have impressed Murdoch. She showed a willingness to make difficult staffing decisions and widened the Sunday Times's digital ambitions, recasting the pro-Brexit paper to appeal to a wider audience.
It was there she made an enemy of her first populist world leader. Just months into her tenure, the Sunday Times published a damning account of how Boris Johnson, the then UK prime minister, had handled the Covid pandemic.
Downing Street erupted, taking the unusual step of issuing a lengthy rebuttal, denouncing 'falsehoods and errors'. The paper was called 'the most hostile paper in the country' to Johnson's government, despite having backed him at the previous year's election. Rachel Johnson, the former prime minister's sister, is one of Tucker's closest friends.
'I don't think she was ever reckless,' said one Sunday Times staffer. 'But I think she absolutely wanted to push the boundaries of getting as much into the public domain as she possibly could.'
Many assumed Tucker's destiny was to edit the Times, but she was catapulted to New York to run the Journal at the start of 2023, immediately embarking on a painful streamlining process.
Senior editors were axed. Pulitzer prize winners ditched. The DC bureau, the most powerful, was particularly targeted with layoffs and new leadership.
One reporter spoke of people crying, another of the process's serious mental impact. It made Tucker's editorship divisive, leading to the extraordinary spectacle of journalists plastering her unoccupied office with sticky notes denouncing the layoffs.
Even some who accepted cuts questioned the methods. Several pointed to the use of 'performance improvement plans', with journalists claiming they had been handed unrealistic targets designed to push them out the door. One described it as 'gratuitously cruel'.
A Journal spokesperson said: 'Performance improvement plans are used to set clear objectives and create a development plan that gives an employee feedback and support to meet those objectives. They are being used exactly as designed.'
The Tucker enigma re-emerged at the Journal, as staff noted the same mix of personable demeanour, enthusiasm for stories and willingness to make cuts.
'She's very emotionally intelligent – like, the 99th percentile,' said one. They said morale had improved more recently. New hires have followed.
A cultural shift on stories also arrived. What emerges is a Tucker Venn diagram. At its overlapping centre lie stories with two qualities: they cover legitimate areas of public importance and aim squarely at eye-catching topics with digital reach.
Tucker gave investigative reporters the examples of Elon Musk and China as two potential areas. Some complained the topics were 'clickbaity'. However, one journalist who had had reservations conceded: 'Musk turned out to be a pretty good topic.' Tucker's use of metrics around web traffic and time spent reading a story irked some reporters.
Headlines were made more direct. Honorifics such as 'Mr' and 'Mrs' were ditched. There was a ban on stories having more than three bylines. 'She loosened a lot of the strictures that we had,' said one staffer. 'We're encouraged to write more edgy stories.'
Positioning the Journal as a punchy rival to the liberal New York Times juggernaut may be a good business plan, but doing so while not falling foul of Murdoch's politics remains a delicate balance.
'There's a particular moment now where the Wall Street Journal has to prove its mettle as the pre-eminent business and financial markets media organisation,' said Paddy Harverson, a contemporary of Tucker's at the FT, now a communications executive. 'They're up against Trump, yet they have an historically centre-right editorial view. She has guided the paper along that tightrope really well.'
Allies said Tucker laid a marker of intent in terms of punchy stories when she published an article on the alleged cognitive decline of Joe Biden. It was initially described as a 'hit piece' by the Biden administration. Some see the Epstein story as the latest evidence of Tucker's shift.
There are journalists, however, who blame Trump's response for giving the story attention it simply didn't warrant. Others disagree about the extent of Tucker's changes, pointing to the Journal's history of breaking contentious stories, including the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels. However, the net result of the Epstein letter saga has been to draw attention to Tucker's attempted change in tone.
Trump's lawsuit means the furore may only just be beginning. Many seasoned media figures assume Murdoch, who does not respond well to bullying, will not back down. However, neither billionaire will relish having to face depositions and disclosures. Any settlement from Murdoch could put pressure on Tucker, depending on its details.
Dow Jones, which publishes the Journal, has said it has 'full confidence in the rigour and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit'. The courts may yet reject Trump's case.
'I don't think [Murdoch] will just flop over,' said Barber. 'The issue here is that Trump went around boasting that he killed the story … For an editor, that's very difficult. But I'm pretty damn confident there's no way [Tucker] would publish without having it properly sourced.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
Charity watchdog's five-year fight for the truth about Aspinall Foundation
Leaving Number 10 in disgrace after the Partygate scandal three years ago has not stopped Boris Johnson getting rich ever since. He has earned millions from books and lecture tours, enough to buy a £4m Oxfordshire manor house for him, wife Carrie and their children. It was a different story when the couple were in Downing Street in January 2021 before the Partygate antics surfaced. They were in desperate need of money after Mr Johnson's expensive divorce – and what became known as the 'wallpapergate' affair – left their finances in tatters. He was criticised after failing to disclose secret Tory funding for a lavish refurbishment of their Downing Street flat by interior designer Lulu Lytle. It was at this moment that the couple received a much-needed – and timely – cash injection. Carrie Johnson, or Carrie Symonds, Mr Johnson's fiancee as she then was, was hired by the Aspinall Foundation wildlife conservation charity as director of communications on an estimated 'high five-figure salary'. Just two months after Mr Aspinall signed Ms Johnson, hailing her as a 'huge asset', she had to defend it when it was hit by a potential scandal. It emerged that the Charity Commission had opened a 'regulatory compliance case' investigation into the Aspinall Foundation in 2020. The matters being investigated by the watchdog pre-dated Ms Johnson's arrival at the charity and there is no suggestion she was the subject of investigation. She played down the gravity of the situation, saying such action was 'commonplace during routine regulatory checks'. However, any notion that it was commonplace was blown out of the water weeks later. Then, in March 2022, the commission announced a statutory inquiry – its most serious form of investigation – into the Aspinall Foundation and its sister charity Howletts Wild Animal Trust. It was looking into 'serious concerns about the governance and financial management after reports of possible conflicts of interest and related-party transactions' of both – while adding that the announcement was not in itself a finding of wrongdoing. Extraordinarily, five years after first sounding the alarm bell, the commission still has the Aspinall Foundation in its crosshairs. Two months ago it took its most drastic action yet, sending in troubleshooters – interim managers – to the foundation after 'fresh issues of concern were identified requiring us to embark on a further phase of investigation'. The Charity Commission's code of practice spells out the seriousness of this step. It states that it can appoint interim managers to act as 'receivers and managers' after a statutory inquiry – and 'if it is satisfied there has been misconduct and/or mismanagement in the charity's administration or it is necessary to protect the charity's property'. Using language akin to policing, it explains the aim is to 'detect, prevent or disrupt misconduct or mismanagement.' Misconduct is defined as 'any act that the person committing it knew – or ought to have known – was criminal, unlawful or improper'. Moreover the interim managers can take over the charity completely, excluding trustees from decision making. One of the most striking aspects of the commission's five year investigation into the Aspinall Foundation is its relentlessness. It began informal enquiries in July 2020; in November 2020 it was sufficiently concerned to open a 'regulatory compliance case'; in March 2021 that became a 'statutory inquiry' – its most serious type of investigation – and now it has gone even further, sending in interim managers. The focus of the investigation has been the same throughout, flagging up concerns about 'governance; financial management; conflicts of interest; unauthorised trustee benefit; whether trustees have complied with their duties under the law.' Allegations against the Aspinall Foundation, mainly based on its accounts, include allowing trustees' chairman Mr Aspinall, 65, to rent its palatial HQ, Howletts House, for £2,500 a month; paying £150,000 to his wife, Victoria, for 'interior design'; making loans to Mr Aspinall - in 2019 he reportedly owed it £113,000, and paying £124,000 for accountancy to Alvarium, a company of which Charles Filmer, a former Aspinalls trustee was a director. Allegations against the Howletts Wild Animal Trust include paying a £30,000 a year pension to Mr Aspinall's step mother Lady Sarah Aspinall for 'gardening services'. The charity has defended itself in the past saying the payments to Victoria Aspinall were conducted 'at arms length', adding that the fees were 'subject to a rigorous benchmarking exercise to ensure the foundation received value for money'. It has said Mr Aspinall repaid all debts to the charity. The Howletts Wild Animal Trust has reportedly said previously that Lady Sarah was entitled to her £30,000 a year for 'prior service as head gardener for many years'. The Charity Commission has wide ranging powers to act against charities where wrongdoing is found. They range from removing trustees to taking over the running of the charity and winding it up completely. The leadership of the non profit-making and unconventional Aspinall Foundation has always resembled a high society charitable affair involving three generations of the casino owning Aspinalls, Brexit supporting tycoons, eccentric aristocrats, glamorous women and maverick Tories like Boris Johnson and his political and personal coterie. The foundation was created by Mr Aspinall's flamboyant father, gambling tycoon John Aspinall, in 1984. He was a close friend of fellow gambler Lord Lucan, who disappeared in 1974, and was also close to anti-EU campaigner Sir James Goldsmith, father of Zac and Ben. John Aspinall's Clermont Gambling club in London became the venue for celebrity nightclub Annabel's, opened by Mark Birley in the 1960s. Mark Birley's son, Robin, is a former trustee of the Aspinall Foundation, but his time there predates the Charity Commission's inquiries. Robin Birley, who owns the 5 Hertford St private club in Mayfair, renowned as a meeting place for wealthy Brexit supporters, gave £200,000 to Nigel Farage's UKIP party and £20,000 to Mr Johnson's successful Tory leadership campaign in 2019. Mr Birley is the half brother of Sir James Goldsmith's sons Zac and Ben who have both been trustees of the Aspinall Foundation, but also left before any inquiries were launched. Zac Goldsmith was given a peerage and ministerial post by fellow Old Etonian Mr Johnson as prime minister when he lost his Richmond, Surrey Commons seat in 2019. Shortly before becoming prime minister, Mr Johnson wrote a 1,000 word paean of praise to Mr Aspinall, commending his 'wonderful' conservation work in a Daily Telegraph article. Zac Goldsmith is also a mentor and close friend of Mrs Johnson. Her entree into the Tory Party, where she became its head of communications and met Mr Johnson, was as a young constituency campaigner for Zac Goldsmith. Ben Goldsmith was given a post on the board of the Department of the Environment – where his brother was a minister – in Mr Johnson's administration. Damian Aspinall, who like his father, once owned a casino, is reputedly worth £200 million. Mt Aspinall's daughter Tansy, whose mother Louise Sebag-Montefiire was Mr Aspinall's first wife, is a trustee of both the Aspinall Foundation and the Howletts Wild Animal Trust. It has also been suggested that the youngest of twice married Mr Aspinall's three daughters, Freya, a model and internet celebrity, could succeed him as chair of trustees at the Aspinall Foundation. Freya is the result of a separate relationship by Mr Aspinall with actress Donna Air. He also reportedly dated supermodels Elle Macpherson and Naomi Campbell. The Aspinall Foundation has also faced criticism for some of its conservation work. In 2014 it was claimed that some members of ten gorillas released to the wild in Africa by the charity were killed. Mr Aspinall blamed one of the gorillas for the killings.
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
Donald Trump may finally have the measure of Putin
Donald Trump turned out to be wrong, although it may not be tactful to point it out, because the world still needs him to support Ukraine, however grudgingly. But we told him that Vladimir Putin had no interest in making peace, and so it has proved. President Trump thought he could persuade the Russian leader to cut a deal over Ukraine. That approach might not have been as misconceived as it sometimes seemed. It might have been possible that a combination of appeasement, flattery and strong-man talk would have worked. But Putin has shown that he is not interested in negotiation. His belief in a Greater Russia, and possibly his need to wage a permanent war in order to maintain his grip on power, means that the bloodshed will continue, and even Mr Trump can see where the blame lies. It was encouraging, therefore, that Mr Trump shortened the deadline for Russia to avoid enhanced sanctions over the Ukraine war to '10 to 12 days' a few days ago. Mr Trump's deadlines are notoriously variable, but the president's meaning was clear. Equally, Mr Trump's war of words with Dmitry Medvedev, Putin's associate and the former president of Russia, confirms that there is little common ground left between Washington and Moscow. The social media spat culminated in Mr Trump sending two United States nuclear submarines to patrol 'near Russia' – after Medvedev warned the US against being drawn into direct conflict with a nuclear power. Mr Trump should never have threatened to withdraw the US's support for the Ukrainian people, but we should be grateful that he failed to follow through on that threat, even if the precise level of current US support for Volodymyr Zelensky's war effort is shrouded in secrecy. Maybe it was worth trying to do a deal with Putin, although it besmirched the reputation of American democracy that Mr Trump should have subjected Mr Zelensky – a brave leader fighting for his people in a noble cause – to that disgraceful theatrical display in the White House in February. Maybe it was worth Mr Trump rudely waking the peoples of Europe to their responsibility to meet a greater share of the cost of defending their continent. But it should never have been at the expense of the defence of the right of a free people to resist aggression. The international community bore, and continues to bear, a moral duty to defend democracy, human rights and the right to self-determination. All democracies should stand by the Ukrainian people in their time of need, however long that time shall be. No one wants the war to continue for a moment longer, but Mr Trump is now as clear as the rest of the world has been that Putin is responsible for prolonging the bloodshed. The war could end today if Putin wanted it to. For all the capriciousness of the US president, and for all the bombast of his social media communications, it seems that Mr Trump understands that Putin, and his proxy Medvedev, must not be appeased. Sending US nuclear submarines to patrol 'near Russia' is a symbolic gesture, but if what it symbolises is an increased willingness on the part of Mr Trump to support Ukraine against Putin's aggression, then it is to be welcomed.
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
Photos from a street festival of circus performers in the Russian town of Staritsa
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
