)
The Washington Post recently departed from a longstanding tradition when it announced it would not endorse a candidate in the upcoming United States presidential election — a decision that has spurred intense criticism from readers and employees.
The announcement, framed by the paper as a return to its “roots” of non-endorsement, has ignited concerns over journalistic independence, the role of the press in democracy, and whether ownership influences editorial decisions.
A return to roots or a risk to integrity?
In a column on The Washington Post’s website, CEO William Lewis declared the paper would refrain from endorsing a presidential candidate for the first time in 36 years. Lewis stated that this decision aimed to respect readers’ “ability to make up their own minds” and was consistent with the paper’s core values.
“We recognise that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable,” he explained. “We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader.”
The newspaper’s banner logo is seen during the grand opening of the Washington Post newsroom in Washington, January 28, 2016. File Image/Reuters
This decision not only broke with The Post’s recent tradition of endorsing Democratic candidates, which began in 1976, but also, according to Lewis, signalled a departure from the expectations placed upon the paper by its loyal readership. The Post had abstained from endorsing in presidential races only twice since the 1970s, most recently in 1988.
However, some suggest this choice may have been influenced by owner Jeff Bezos, who made the final call. Sources close to the decision confirmed that The Post’s editorial staff had already drafted an endorsement for US Vice President Kamala Harris, but Bezos ultimately decided against its publication.
“This was a Washington Post decision to not endorse, and I would refer you to the publisher’s statement in full,” stated the paper’s chief communications officer Kathy Baird.
Readers, Reporters, and Resignations
The backlash from readers was swift, with thousands expressing their frustration across social media and in comments sections. Some longtime subscribers cancelled their subscriptions in protest.
“Appalling. Cancelling my subscription immediately,” wrote one reader on social media. Another, who described themselves as a lifelong Post reader, lamented, “Democracy dies in darkness, indeed. WaPo is dark.”
Current and former employees, too, voiced strong objections. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, known for their coverage of the Watergate scandal, condemned the move, stating that the paper’s resources had demonstrated the “threat Donald Trump poses to democracy.”
The paper’s former executive editor Marty Baron labelled the decision “cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty.” Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Carol Leonnig added, “My fear is that this signals a tip-toeing deference to a candidate. And that spells trouble [for] what I care deeply about: revelatory reporting without fear or favour.”
The decision prompted at least one resignation. Robert Kagan, a columnist and editor-at-large, stepped down, saying, “If you don’t have the balls to own a newspaper, don’t.” He criticised the decision as “preemptive bending of the knee to who they may think is the probable winner.”
Kagan’s resignation reflects a broader discontent within The Post, where internal discussions indicate further resignations could follow.
Impact on subscriptions
According to inside sources who spoke to Semafor, the decision appears to have had an immediate impact on subscriptions, with approximately 2,000 readers cancelling within the first 24 hours — an unusually high figure for a single day.
However, one employee downplayed the number, calling it “not statistically significant.” Nevertheless, the decision has highlighted broader shifts in how media companies approach endorsements and their role in democratic discourse.
A television cameraman takes up a position as people walk by the entrance of the Washington Post headquarters in Washington, August 5, 2013. File Image/Reuters
Adding to the controversy, the Los Angeles Times made a similar announcement recently. Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of The LA Times, blocked a planned endorsement of Harris, prompting editorial editor Mariel Garza to resign.
“I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent,” Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up.” Soon-Shiong defended the choice, suggesting that instead of endorsing, the paper should provide an analysis of each candidate’s policies, positive and negative.
The New York Times took a contrasting stance, endorsing Harris and calling her “the only patriotic choice for president.” The New York Post, meanwhile, endorsed Donald Trump, stating, “America is ready for today’s heroic Donald Trump to reclaim the presidency.”
This stark division between major media outlets has put a spotlight on the growing ideological split in American journalism, further fuelled by ownership dynamics and political pressures.
As political tensions heighten, prominent media figures have weighed in. Nancy Gibbs, head of Harvard University’s media and public policy center, labelled The Post’s decision an “act of self-sabotage” in an essay for The New York Times. She added that it “eroded the bulwark against autocracy.”
Eugene Robinson and Ruth Marcus, Pulitzer Prize winners and opinion columnists at The Post, also criticised the decision. “This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law, and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them,” they wrote.
Susan Rice, former US national security adviser in the Barack Obama administration, echoed their sentiments on social media, expressing disappointment as a “DC native and lifelong subscriber.”
As a DC native and lifelong subscriber to the Post, I’m disgusted. You have lost us.
Opinion | On political endorsement – The Washington Post https://t.co/WKgIEDtkqg
— Susan Rice (@AmbassadorRice) October 25, 2024
Despite these reactions, some readers supported The Post’s decision to remain neutral, praising the move as a step toward unbiased journalism. Nevertheless, the decision has fuelled debate on whether media organisations should endorse political candidates or focus on providing balanced, factual reporting.
With inputs from agencies
Get all the latest updates of US Elections 2024
