Key Takeaways:
* The Washington Post refrains from endorsing presidential candidates for the first time in 36 years.
* The last time the Post did not make an endorsement was in 1988.
* The paper’s decision to not endorse sparked internal strife, leading to the resignation of an editorial board member.
* More than 1,600 digital subscriptions were cancelled following the announcement.
* Ownership of the announcement was claimed by publisher and CEO Will Lewis.
* Los Angeles Times also made a similar non-endorsement decision, prompting resignations from the editorial staff.
The Washington Post Reverts to Tradition
The Washington Post has announced that it will return to its traditional stance of not endorsing presidential candidates. The announcement was made by the newspaper’s publisher and CEO, Will Lewis, in an opinion piece published on the paper’s website. This decision marks the first time in 36 years that the company has refrained from endorsing a presidential candidate.
Pre-1970s Policy Revisited
According to Lewis, The Washington Post is “returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.” Lewis referenced a bygone era when the publication refrained from making endorsements, a strategy they maintained up until the 1970s. Following the Watergate scandal, which the Post brought to light, the publication supported Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Scuppering an Endorsement in the Pipeline
The news about the Post’s decision not to endorse candidates was initially briefed to staff members by David Shipley, the editorial page editor, in a fraught meeting. Shipley had previously given the green light to an editorial endorsement for Kamala Harris, which raised eyebrows among staffs privy to the development. However, a review by the paper’s billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos, was set to determine whether the endorsement would get published.
Repercussions of the Non-endorsement Decision
The non-endorsement decision by management led to an array of reactions within The Washington Post’s workforce. Some staff members claimed to be “shocked” while a few expressed their negativity towards the decision. Robert Kagan, an editor-at-large who has been highly critical of Donald Trump, resigned from his position on the editorial board.
Expressions of Disapproval
One scathing critique came from former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who denounced the decision as an act of “cowardice.” He vented his concerns that this decision would encourage Trump to “intimidate The Washington Post’s owner” and considered this non-endorsement as a dark day for democracy under the shadow of fear.
Moreover, the absence of a candidate endorsement raised concerns among the Washington Post Guild, which felt that management was interfering in journalism. They also expressed worries about a decline in loyal readership. In fact, more than 1,600 digital subscriptions were cancelled in less than four hours following the announcement.
Silencing Questions and the Path Chosen
As the uproar grew, the paper’s chief tech officer directed engineers to block readers’ queries regarding the endorsement decision on the paper’s own AI site search. In the meantime, the Post’s corporate spokespeople declined to comment beyond Lewis’ initial statement. This stirred decision was bolstered by the fact that the Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, has substantial business contracts with the federal government, underscoring the paper’s need for political neutrality.
The decision to abstain from endorsing a presidential candidate is not only unique to The Washington Post. The Los Angeles Times also decided against endorsement, leading to multiple resignations from its editorial board. This sparks a fresh debate on the role of journalism in political endorsements and its impact on readership loyalty and internal harmony.
