Why the Washington Post’s decision not to endorse a US presidential candidate caused an uproar – Firstpost

The Washington Post recently broke with long-standing tradition when it announced it would not endorse a candidate in the upcoming US presidential election – a decision that drew sharp criticism from readers and staff.

The statement, framed by the newspaper as a return to its non-supportive “roots,” raised concerns about journalistic independence, the role of the press in a democracy and whether ownership influences editorial decisions.

Return to roots or risk of integrity?

In a column on The Washington Post website, CEO William Lewis
stated The newspaper will refrain from endorsing a presidential candidate for the first time in 36 years. Lewis said the decision was intended to respect “readers’ ability to make their own decisions” and was consistent with the newspaper’s core values.

“We understand that this will be perceived in different ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, a condemnation of another, or a denial of responsibility. This is inevitable,” he explained. “We don’t see it that way. We believe this is consistent with the values ​​The Post has always stood for and what we look for in a leader.”

The decision not only broke The Post’s recent tradition of endorsing Democratic candidates dating back to 1976, but also, in Lewis’s view, signaled a departure from the expectations placed on the paper by its loyal readers. The Post has abstained from presidential races only twice since the 1970s, most recently in 1988.

However, some have speculated that this choice may have been influenced by owner Jeff Bezos, who made the latter decision. Sources close to the decision confirmed that The Post had already prepared a recommendation for US Vice President Kamala Harris, but Bezos
ultimately abandoned its publication.

“It is the Washington Post’s decision not to endorse, and I refer you to the publisher’s full statement,” said the newspaper’s communications director, Kathy Baird.

Readers, reporters and resignations

The reaction from readers was swift, with thousands of people expressing their disappointment on social media and in the comments. Some longtime subscribers canceled their subscriptions in protest.

“Terrible. I’m canceling my subscription immediately,” wrote one reader on the social network. Another, who described himself as a regular Post reader, lamented: “Democracy truly dies in darkness. It’s dark in WaPo.”

Current and former employees also voiced strong objections.
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, known for his reporting on
Watergate scandal condemned the move, saying the newspaper’s resources demonstrated “the threat that Donald Trump poses to democracy.”

The paper’s former executive editor, Marty Baron, called the decision “cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy a victim.” Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Carol Leonnig added: “I fear this signals deferential deference to the candidate. And that creates problems for what I care deeply about: revealing reporting without fear or favor.”

The decision led to at least one resignation. Robert Kagan, columnist and editor-in-chief, resigned, saying, “If you don’t have the guts to own a newspaper, don’t do it.” He criticized the decision, calling it “preemptive genuflection to who they think is the likely winner.”

Kagan’s resignation reflects broader discontent within The Post, where internal discussions indicate more resignations could follow.

Impact on subscriptions

According to internal sources who spoke with Semaphorethe decision appears to have had an immediate impact on subscription numbers, with approximately 2,000 readers canceling their subscriptions within the first 24 hours—an unusually high rate in a single day.

However, one employee downplayed the figure, calling it “statistically insignificant.” However, the decision highlighted broader changes in how media companies approach support and their role in democratic discourse.

Adding to the controversy, the Los Angeles Times recently made a similar statement. Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of The LA Times, blocked Harris’ planned endorsement, prompting editorial editor Mariel Garza to resign.

“I’m resigning because I want to make it clear that I’m not happy with us being silent,” Garza told reporters. Colombia Journalism Review. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up.” Soon-Shiong defended the choice, suggesting that instead of an endorsement, the newspaper should provide an analysis of each candidate’s policies, positive and negative.

The New York Times took the opposite position, endorsing Harris and calling her “the only patriotic candidate for president.” Meanwhile, the New York Post endorsed Donald Trump, saying, “America is ready for today’s heroic Donald Trump to reclaim the presidency.”

This stark division between major media outlets has highlighted a growing ideological divide in American journalism, further fueled by ownership dynamics and political pressure.

As political tensions escalate, prominent media figures have weighed in with their opinions. Nancy Gibbs, director of the Center for Media and Public Policy at Harvard University, called The Post’s decision an “act of self-sabotage” in an essay for New York Times. She added that it “undermined the defense against autocracy.”

Eugene Robinson and Ruth Marcus, Pulitzer Prize winners and columnists for The Post, also criticized the decision. “This is a moment when the institution must make clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat Donald Trump poses to them,” they wrote.

Susan Rice, a former US national security adviser in the Obama administration, echoed their sentiments on social media, expressing disappointment as a “DC native and lifelong subscriber.”

As a Washington native and lifelong Post subscriber, I am disgusted. You’ve lost us.

Opinion | About political support – The Washington Post https://t.co/WKgIEDtkqg

— Susan Rice (@AmbassadorRice) October 25, 2024

Despite this reaction, some readers supported The Post’s decision to remain neutral, praising the move as a step toward impartial journalism. However, the decision has sparked debate over whether media outlets should support political candidates or focus on providing balanced, fact-based reporting.

With the participation of agencies

Get all the latest news about the 2024 US elections.