The Washington Post announced Friday that for the first time in more than 30 years, its editorial board will not endorse a candidate in the presidential election.
“We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” Will Lewis, the newspaper’s publisher and chief executive, said in a statement Friday, less than two weeks until the 2024 presidential election.
The Washington Post Editorial Board has endorsed candidates in nearly every presidential election since endorsing Jimmy Carter in 1976. Jeff Bezos, the billionaire owner of Amazon, bought the Post in 2013.
The Post’s leadership’s decision not to endorse any candidate in what is widely considered the most consequential election in recent U.S. history is a sign of controversy among some prominent current and former staffers and other prominent figures. caused anger.
Former Washington Post editor-in-chief Marty Barron criticized the paper’s decision, calling it a “despicable act at the expense of democracy.”
Donald Trump “will see this as an invitation to further blackmail Jeff Bezos, the billionaire owner of the Washington Post,” Barron said. “The loss of a spine in an institution renowned for courage is alarming,” he added.
Susan Rice, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a former domestic policy adviser in the Biden administration, criticized the decision as “hypocritical.”
“So much for ‘democracy dies in darkness,'” she said, referring to the paper’s official slogan adopted in 2017 under Bezos’ ownership. “This is the most hypocritical and shitty action by a publication that should be holding those in power accountable.”
David Moranis, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and editor of the Post, added: “The newspaper I loved and worked for for 47 years is dying in darkness.” Multiple media outlets also reported that the paper’s editor-in-chief, Robert Kagan, had decided to resign from the editorial board after the paper announced it would not support the presidential election.
A Post executive spoke to the Guardian on condition of anonymity. “The Post’s editorial board just won a Pulitzer Prize for its work criticizing authoritarianism and defending democracy around the world,” he said, adding, “It’s really sad that we can’t do that.” Do you do that at home? ”
“There is a lot of sadness and frustration among staff,” they added. “More than anything, this feels like a blow to WaPo’s long tradition of courageous reporting.”
The Washington Post’s decision comes after a similar decision by billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times, Patrick Soon-Shione, earlier this week to block Kamala Harris’ presidential endorsement. This was done after the spread of The move sparked high-profile resignations within the publication amid anger among staff.
In a statement about the Post’s decision, Lewis said the paper’s editorial board had at times in the past chosen not to endorse presidential candidates and cited independent journalism. Calling it “the right thing to do,” the newspaper said it was now “coming back on track.”
“We recognize that this could be read in a variety of ways, including tacit support for one candidate, condemnation of another, or an abdication of responsibility,” Lewis said.
“It’s inevitable,” he said, adding: “We don’t think about it that way.”
Rather, Lewis said it is “consistent with the values” the paper has espoused and what it expects from its leaders: “Character and courage in the service of American ethics and reverence for the rule of law.” , and respect for human beings.” Freedom in all aspects. ”
Lewis added that not supporting is also a statement of support for readers’ ability to make their own decisions about America’s most important decision: “Who to vote for as our next president.”
“At The Washington Post, our job is to provide nonpartisan news to all Americans through our newsroom and provide thought-provoking views from our opinion team so readers can make their own decisions. “, he said, adding: Above all, our job as the newspaper in the capital of the world’s most important country is to be independent. ”
“And that is what we are and what we will continue to be,” he concluded.
NPR reported that many Washington Post employees were “shocked” and their reactions were “uniformly negative.”
The Washington Post Guild, the union that represents many of the paper’s employees, said in a statement Friday that it is “deeply concerned” by the paper’s decision “especially at this time, just 11 days before a very important election.” ” he said.
“The editorial board’s role is to do just that: share opinions on news that impacts our society and culture, and recommend candidates to guide our readers.”
The guild also said that a statement of support for Harris had already been drafted, and that Bezos himself had made the decision not to publish it, according to the paper’s reporters and guild members. The guild said it was already seeing cancellations from its once-loyal readers.
The Columbia Journalism Review also reported Friday that the Washington Post’s editorial board had already drafted support for Ms. Harris, and as of a week ago, editorial page editor David Shipley told the editorial board: He said his support was on track and that he had resigned. The board and staff were “stunned” when the announcement was made Friday.
At the Los Angeles Times, the decision not to support led to the resignation of Editor-in-Chief Mariel Garza and several other board members in protest.
“Dangerous times require honest people to stand up. This is how I stand up,” Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review of his decision to resign.
A Los Angeles Times reporter criticized the paper’s decision, calling it “unrealistic” and “cowardly.”
The daughter of the Los Angeles Times publisher even addressed her father’s decision not to have the paper endorse a candidate, and how the decision not to endorse a candidate was also related to Harris’ position on America’s wars. posted a series of statements on social media suggesting that Gaza.
“This is not a vote for Donald Trump,” she said, but rather a refusal to support Harris, who “is overseeing a war against our children.”
Unlike the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, the New York Times editorial board endorsed Kamala Harris in September, saying she was the “only choice” for president.
The Guardian also supports Harris.
