WASHINGTON, D.C., USA — For the first time in decades, The Washington Post will not endorse a candidate in this year’s presidential race, a decision announced Friday, October 25, 2024, that has ignited strong reactions across the newsroom.
Publisher Will Lewis cited a return to the paper’s “roots” of non-endorsement, a stance that will continue in future presidential elections.
The decision, which The Post reports was made by owner Jeff Bezos, deviates sharply from recent tradition and comes amid concerns that it could be seen as appeasement of former President Donald Trump.
Staffers and editors within The Post expressed frustration and anger, with some claiming it undermines the paper’s role in defending democratic principles.
In The Post‘s statement published on its website, the publisher said, “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. We don’t see it that way.”
Reader Reactions and Internal Divisions
The Post’s editorial board had reportedly drafted an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris, sources told CNN, though the endorsement was blocked before the draft could be presented.
The decision to halt presidential endorsements has sparked a significant backlash, with nearly 2,000 subscriptions reportedly cancelled within 24 hours, The New York Post revealed.
Among those cancelling were high-profile readers, including acclaimed novelist Stephen King and former Clinton White House aide Keith Boykin, signalling a wave of discontent from previously loyal subscribers.
The fallout has extended beyond readership.
Staff frustration has been palpable, with several employees voicing fears that the move may compromise The Post’s commitment to journalistic integrity during a critical election cycle.
On Friday, Robert Kagan, an opinion editor-at-large and the first prominent journalist to resign in protest, cited concerns that the decision aligns with a broader trend of self-censorship in response to political pressure.
“This is obviously an effort by Jeff Bezos to curry favour with Donald Trump in anticipation of his possible victory,” Kagan said.
He pointed to Trump’s history of clashing with Bezos, particularly over Amazon’s business dealings and its perceived influence through The Post.
Former Executive Editor Marty Baron echoed Kagan’s sentiment, calling the decision “cowardice” that plays into Trump’s attempts to intimidate critical voices.
Editorial Convictions and Public Perception
The move sparked outrage beyond the newsroom, as former and current staff expressed concerns about The Post’s mission in an era of divisive politics.
“Democracy doesn’t die in darkness; it dies when people anticipatorily consent to a fascist’s whims,” one anonymous staffer told CNN.
In a collective statement, 13 opinion columnists denounced the decision as “a terrible mistake,” describing it as an abandonment of The Post’s principles.
David Maraniss, a Pulitzer Prize-winning editor, reflected his dismay, saying, “The paper I’ve loved working at for 47 years is dying in darkness.”
A Shift in American Newspaper Endorsements
The announcement follows a trend among major U.S. newspapers to scale back on endorsements.
Both McClatchy and Alden Global Capital, which oversee hundreds of publications, recently suspended the practice.
Earlier this year, The New York Times scaled back to endorsing only in national elections, ultimately supporting Harris as “the only patriotic choice for president.”
In contrast, The Philadelphia Inquirer and Houston Chronicle endorsed Harris on Friday, with The Inquirer board asserting, “America deserves much more than an aspiring autocrat who ignores the law, is running to stay out of prison, and doesn’t care about anyone but himself.”
As the controversy continues, questions over the role of media in political discourse and democratic integrity remain at the forefront, with The Post’s decision adding another dimension to the ongoing debate about the power and responsibility of the press in American elections.
