This is strange given the paper’s political leanings and the fact that it’s endorsed candidates for 48 years running, but this morning the Washington Post declared that it will not be endorsing a candidate in this year’s political elections, or ever again. Click on the headline below to see the statement of the paper’s publisher and chief executive officer, or find the article archived here.
Excerpts:
The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.
This is not the first time the paper demurred, but it now sets a precedent for all future Presidential elections:
“The Washington Post has not ‘endorsed’ either candidate in the presidential campaign. That is in our tradition and accords with our action in five of the last six elections. The unusual circumstances of the 1952 election led us to make an exception when we endorsed General Eisenhower prior to the nominating conventions and reiterated our endorsement during the campaign. In the light of hindsight we retain the view that the arguments for his nomination and election were compelling. But hindsight also has convinced us that it might have been wiser for an independent newspaper in the Nation’s Capital to have avoided formal endorsement.”
Indeed, but the paper’s slant towards Kamala Harris was so palpably obvious that they might as well have endorsed her!
More:
And again in 1972, the Editorial Board posed, and then answered this critical question ahead of an election which President Richard M. Nixon won: “In talking about the choice of a President of the United States, what is a newspaper’s proper role? … Our own answer is that we are, as our masthead proclaims, an independent newspaper, and that with one exception (our support of President Eisenhower in 1952), it has not been our tradition to bestow formal endorsement upon presidential candidates. We can think of no reason to depart from that tradition this year.”
That was strong reasoning, but in 1976 for understandable reasons at the time, we changed this long-standing policy and endorsed Jimmy Carter as president. But we had it right before that, and this is what we are going back to.
. . . We recognize 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. 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: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects. We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president.
Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds.
Most of all, our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent.
In general I agree—if you see the word “independent” as meaning “having no slant on the news or on our official position.” Having “institutional neutrality” in this way reassures the reader that the news will not be biased one way or another.
But my problem with this is that the Post, even more than the New York Times, has been strongly slanted (in both news and opinion) towards Harris and other Democrats. So why the change? Will we expect to see more unbiased news now, sort of like the Wall Street Journal? Let us hope so, for it’s getting harder and harder to find unbiased examples of “mainstream media.”
The NYT also reported on this (in its business section). Click below to read or find the piece archived here.
Questions about whether The Post would endorse a candidate this year have spread for days. Some people have speculated, without any proof, that the paper’s billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos, was being cowed by a prospective Trump administration because his other businesses have many federal government contracts.
Mr. Lewis, in his note to the staff, said little about how The Post arrived at its decision, adding only that it was not “a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another.” He referenced an editorial the paper published in 1960 that it was “wiser for an independent newspaper in the Nation’s Capital” to avoid an endorsement.
The Washington Post’s editorial writers had already drafted an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris for president, according to four people who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive newsroom matters.
. . . . The Post’s editorial board had contacted the Harris campaign and the Trump campaign to request interviews ahead of its decision to endorse, two of the people said. Ms. Harris declined the interview and the Trump campaign didn’t respond, one of the people said.
The Post’s decision drew immediate blowback on social media, including from Marty Baron, the recent editor of The Post who led the paper through a period of editorial and business success.
“This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty,” Mr. Baron said in a post on X. He added that former President Donald J. Trump would see it as an invitation to continue to try to intimidate Mr. Bezos. “Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”
The Post’s move follows unfurling tumult at The Los Angeles Times, where the head of the editorial board and two of its writers have resigned this week to protest the decision by The Times’s owner, the billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, to block a planned presidential endorsement.
Upset, several Post editorial board members resigned, as they thought the paper should endorse Harris. But note that the editorial board itself had already endorsed Harris:
Newspapers across the United States have steadily backed away from endorsing political candidates in recent years.
The New York Times’s editorial board, which operates separately from the newsroom, endorsed Ms. Harris for president on Sept. 30, saying: “It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump.” But in August, it said it would stop endorsing candidates in New York elections, including the New York City mayoral race.
We’ve accepted these endorsements for years and I, for one, have never questioned them. But really, what purpose do they serve? Thinking about it, they seem a form of condescension or even compulsion, as if the readers can’t be trusted to make up their minds after reading or hearing the news.
In the end, I think the Post did the right thing, and I think other papers should follow in its wake. Yes, of course continue to have editorials written by others, ideally representing a variety of views, but an official endorsement by a paper itself makes readers wary of its objectivity when it comes to the news—and reporting the news objectively is, of course, the first duty of a paper.
Interesting development.
I won’t speculate as to the Post’s motives, but I applaud the decision. There can be great advantage to not declaring oneself as part of a team. If one can internalize the stance, then perhaps it can help ameliorate “my side” bias and present opportunity for greater understanding of and empathy with our fellow citizens.
Yeah, I saw this, and am not too happy about it. I also saw a report that the Post editorial board planned to endorse Kamala Harris, but Jeff Besos nixed it. I don’t think Besos is a Trump fan, but maybe he’s wary of incurring Trump’s “wrath”.
That’s pretty much exactly what happened.
As a general concept, I can agree with the idea of a news organization choosing not to endorse candidates. In this case, i am leery based on timing and communication. Those at the top appear to have known about this for weeks, but withheld the decision from the editorial board and their editor. Such a decision made based on the virture they wish to convince us of would have been more transparent and occurred sooner.
Lastly, if there was an election that needed all influential voices to speak up for a sane candidate and against the most unfit major party candidate in US history, it is this election. I see this as an act of cowardice and appeasement.
+1
As a non-USian this is a genuine question: In that blank space on the WaPo web site where the endorsement could have appeared, would it have been better for the Post to publish two lengthy critiques, one of each candidate, explaining their faults and why neither is worth endorsing? One could be written by the editorial board (against Trump), the other by the publisher (against Harris). The outcome is the same (no endorsement), but the basis for the decision is then clear (both parties suck at nominating good candidates because each is in thrall to its base voters).
Like Congress, the current WaPo Editorial Board cannot bind the future Editorial Board. At some point, perhaps as soon as 2028, they will start again. They are just masking their distaste by trying to portray it as a high-minded policy.
This came straight from Bezos.
Will ‘Thirsty’ Lewis, as Private Eye habitually calls him, is a former editor of the right-wing Torygraph. No wonder he can’t bring himself – or his rag – to support Harris.
“A news organization choosing not to endorse….”
There is a news department and an editorial page. For example, the Wall Street Journal, according to some folks, does a good job of (1) reporting and, separately, (2) editorializing.
You might dislike an outlet reporting Harris’ speeches and frenetic travels but it is actual news. Likewise, reporting Trump’s erratic and pro-violence behavior is also actual news.
Also noted: former endorsements of Democratic nominees by illustrious rich folks (Buffet, Gates, Dimon) are not forthcoming this year. One commenter (Lawyers, Guns and Money!) suggests it is out of fear of reprisals if Trump should win.
I believe Gates has donated $50 million to Harris, at least according to the NYT. Perhaps not a public statement, but as endorsements go, that’s a pretty good one.
Bingo.
Surprise, it’s still October! 🙂
WaPo has a stable of conservative editorial writers, including George Will, Matt Bai, Kathleen Parker and Marc Thiessen, the latter being an actual Republican Party operative. Their editorial cartoonists, Michael Ramirez and Lisa Benson, are also very conservative; they stopped running virtually all liberal cartoonists including Michael DeAdder. None of them go so far as to endorse Trump, but they are harshly critical of Harris, often using false MAGA talking points.
It’s becoming more and more like the WSJ, still good reporting but editorially conservative. In fact, it was never a particularly liberal paper, and has at times endorsed Republicans. So this move is not surprising. Still, it’s not a good look for Bezos, it makes him look weak in the face of a fascist threat.
At least they still run the wonderful and hilarious Alexandra Petri.
Their readers are very liberal and pro-Harris, to go by reader comments.
It’s the opposite at the WSJ (again, to go by comments).
A “fascist threat”?
AllSides ranks the WaPo as “left of center”. Only the far-left disagrees.
The Post has endorsed Eugene Vindman in the race for Congressman in Virginia’s 7th District. He is one of the twin brothers fired by Trump in connection with his first impeachment. This race may help to determine the control of the House. I don’t know whether the Vindman endorsement preceded the editorial decision not to endorse either Presidential candidate.
Jerry, near the end you say that several members of the WP’s editorial board resigned in protest, and then “But note that the editorial board itself had already endorsed Harris”. But the thing you quote after that is about the editorial board of the _New York Times_, not of the _Washington Post_.
(I don’t know of any reason why anyone should care what I think about what newspapers ought to do, but for what it’s worth I think (1) that a policy of not making endorsements is a very reasonable one but (2) a policy that the owners of a newspaper don’t control its editorial positions seems much more important for objectivity than a policy of not making endorsements, and (3) suddenly announcing a no-endorsements policy right before an election looks very fishy. So on balance I say boo to the _Washington Post_, or more precisely to Jeff Bezos.)
Possibly a newspaper might be self-aware enough to know that an endorsement of one candidate will lead to the public voting for the other.
I think it’s simply cowardice for the billionaire owners of these papers to squash the endorsements. It’s obvious they fear Trump’s retribution. The whole point of the editorial staff of a newspaper is to voice opinions. Certainly, an argument could be made that newspapers shouldn’t even have an editorial section if they were truly non-biased, but most do. And yes, the value of newspaper endorsements is debatable. But, it makes one wonder what other articles the billionaire owners have stopped before publication, doesn’t it?
The WP has already made endorsements in other races this year. To back out now, and say it’s do to some “principle” is obviously BS. It’s ironic that Bezos decided to keep the public in the dark, when their byline is “democracy dies in darkness”.
The only principle involved is Bezos’ desire for government contracts with Blue Origin if Trump is elected. It’s a peculiar time to cease presidential endorsements.
As a center-left “Yellow Dog Democrat,” I would normally applaud any business, enterprise, or news publication who chooses to remain objective and not involve themselves in politics. However, given the nature of this election, neutrality equates to complicity or indifference, as far as I’m concerned.
I think the decision for The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times to sit this one out (for a lack of a better term) was a cowardly decision.
Some, like Dave Wasserman from The Cook Political Report, tried to defend the decision of these newspapers by arguing that their credibility as an objective news source could be jeopardized with the general public by taking sides. I have to disagree.
When I was in high school (which was many years ago – I’m an early quadragenarian Millennial), I took 3 years of journalism and became a features section editor for our school newspaper. We had one of the best high school journalism teachers in Jacksonville, Florida and our school newspaper competed (and won) in a few district competitions.
In journalism, the first thing we were taught was the difference between “news” and “opinion.”
It was the editorial boards of these widely read nationwide newspapers who chose to endorse Kamala Harris for President. In other words, this shouldn’t be a problem. These writers give their opinions on political topics on a daily basis. So, how would their endorsement of Harris jeopardize the credibility of the newspaper?
Also, why didn’t these same newspapers adhere to neutrality in previous elections? Why is it that they now choose to promote themselves as impartial when we’re facing the most consequential election of our lifetime?
I don’t think Patrick Soon-Shiong or Jeff Bezos are acting in good faith.
I explained in my post how endorsing candidates by the editorial board could give the impression that the paper has an “official” political stand that could make readers think that the paper is slanting its news Also, if you want to be charitable, you could say the same thing about schools that have adopted ideological neutrality: it used to be only the University of Chicago, but now FIRE reports that in the last couple of years, 20-odd schools have joined us in adopting a version of the Kalven report, refusing to take ideological or political stands unless they intimately affect the working of the University. Would you call out those schools for all of a sudden becoming ideologically impartial when they weren’t before?
Now it may well be that forces are in play here that aren’t simply Kalvin-esque, which would be bad: fears of reprisal and so on. But I also think that people are desperate to keep Trump from being elected, and the refusal to endorse his opponent is seen as a boost for Trump. (“THis is the most consequential election of our lifetime” really means: “If Trump is elected-, America is doomed.”) I think this explains some of the vitriol against papers that have refused to endorse the candidates who MUST win. And I think that some of that vitriol would arise even if there were no suspicions that the paper’s refusal to endorse had purely journalistic motivations to look objective.