The Washington Post’s bombshell decision to skip endorsing a candidate in this year’s presidential race, making it the second biggest newspaper to do this after the LA Times has set off a firestorm among readers, political insiders, and journalists alike.
After reports surfaced that owner Jeff Bezos blocked the endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris, readers took to social media, inboxes, and forums to slam the move, labeling it everything from “cowardly” to “a betrayal of journalistic integrity.”
The decision faced backlash after columnist Robert Kagan resigned, and 11 opinion writers jointly published a piece condemning the decision.
WaPo to not make presidential endorsement
“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,” William Lewis chief executive officer of WaPo said in an opinion piece published on October 25.
William Lewis points out that the Washington Post’s choice not to back a candidate could be seen in different ways, like a subtle thumbs up or a decision not to pick a side. He highlights that this move matches the paper’s primary principles of being honest, brave, and valuing the law.
Lewis talks about the Post’s past in giving out endorsements, starting with Jimmy Carter in 1976, and notes that this decision has stirred up a lot of disagreement among the editorial team, showing how there’s a clear divide between reporting the news and sharing personal views. It concluded with, “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.
Readers react to WaPo’s decision not to endorse either Trump or Harris
With just over a week until the 2024 U.S. presidential showdown between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, major newspapers and media outlets have announced their endorsements. Out of the 80 endorsements backing the Democratic nominee, notable publications include the Winston-Salem Chronicle, New York Times, Boston Globe, The New Yorker, Denver Post, Las Vegas Sun, Los Angeles Sentinel, and Seattle Times. On the other hand, Trump has received endorsements from the New York Post, The Washington Times, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Readers of the Washington Post, one of the most-read newspapers in America were enraged, disappointed, and frustrated with the recent decision of the media monk to sideline from the endorsement.
“Throughout this election cycle, The Post has worked hard to point out the differences between the candidates, which I appreciate,” shared Megan Frampton, a reader from New York. “But refusing to endorse anyone at such a critical juncture feels like sidestepping responsibility.” “And if you are going to stand behind that act of cowardice, please be brave enough to be absolutely and unrelentingly truthful in your coverage in the last few days before we head to the polls,” the reader added according to Post’s opinion column.
“If The Post was going make to the decision not to endorse in presidential elections as a matter of principle, that choice should have been made several months ago. This decision looks ad hoc and expedient,” Rita Whalen from Silver Spring said. The reader continued crticisng Trump in their comment and said, “Donald Trump is morally, intellectually, mentally and emotionally unfit to serve as president.”
Also read: Barron Trump the ‘mastermind’ behind Trump’s secret weapon to…;’Everything he touches turns gold’
With The Post now joining other papers like the Los Angeles Times in steering away from endorsements, readers are left wondering about the evolving purpose of traditional editorial boards. “If The Post isn’t going to endorse presidential candidates — arguably the most critical function of an editorial board — what purpose does it really serve?” asked Sash Goswami from Maryland.
Many longtime readers expected The Post, with its storied history and editorial clout, to take a definitive stance, especially given the polarized nature of this election. But instead, The Post chose neutrality, a move some readers have called “cowardly” and “an abdication of responsibility.”
