Washington Post’s Bold Move: No Endorsement in 2024 Election Sparks Controversy

by

in

The Washington Post has announced that, for the first time in over 30 years, its editorial board will not endorse a candidate in the upcoming presidential election. Publisher and CEO Will Lewis stated that the newspaper is returning to its roots of not endorsing presidential candidates, just weeks before the 2024 election.

The editorial board of the Washington Post has historically endorsed a candidate in nearly every presidential election since supporting Jimmy Carter in 1976. The decision not to make an endorsement has elicited criticism from current and former staff members, as well as various public figures.

Marty Baron, the former executive editor of the Post, rebuked the decision, describing it as “cowardice” that threatens democracy. He expressed concern that Donald Trump would interpret this as an opportunity to intimidate Jeff Bezos, the Post’s owner. Baron emphasized the institution’s reputation for courage, calling this change disturbing.

Susan Rice, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a Biden administration advisor, labeled the move “hypocritical,” referencing the newspaper’s slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” In her view, the decision undermines the publication’s role in holding those in power accountable.

David Maraniss, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, expressed discontent, stating that the newspaper he has dedicated himself to for 47 years is “dying in darkness.” Reports indicate that Robert Kagan, the paper’s editor at large, has resigned from the editorial board in light of the announcement.

A senior staff member, speaking anonymously, remarked on the disappointment within the Post, especially given the board’s recent success in winning a Pulitzer Prize for its advocacy against authoritarianism. The staffer lamented the inability to apply the same principles domestically.

The Post’s decision follows a similar situation at the Los Angeles Times, where owner Patrick Soon-Shiong blocked a planned endorsement of Kamala Harris, leading to staff resignations due to anger over the decision.

In explaining the Post’s choice, Lewis alluded to historical instances where the editorial board refrained from making endorsements, championing independent journalism. He acknowledged that some may interpret the lack of endorsement differently but insisted that it aligns with the newspaper’s values.

Lewis emphasized the responsibility of readers to make their own voting decisions and reassured that the Post’s mission is to deliver non-partisan news and diverse opinions. He concluded by affirming the publication’s commitment to independence.

Staff reactions were reportedly “shocked” and largely negative. The Washington Post Guild expressed concern over the decision made just days before a crucial election, stating that the editorial board plays a vital role in guiding readers through opinions and endorsements.

The Guild also reported that a draft endorsement for Harris already existed, and the decision not to publish came directly from Bezos. Following this, cancellations from loyal readers have begun to surface.

Similarly, reports indicated that the editorial board at the Los Angeles Times had resigned in protest over the decision not to endorse. A member from the board labeled the choice “cowardly,” with further commentary from the publisher’s daughter implying connections between the endorsement decision and Harris’s stance on certain issues.

In contrast to these developments, the New York Times endorsed Kamala Harris in September, declaring her “the only choice” for president, while the Guardian also supported her candidacy.

Popular Categories


Search the website