The Washington Post recently announced on October 25th that it will no longer endorse presidential candidates, ending a tradition that dates back to 1976. The decision, led by the newspaper’s owner Jeff Bezos, was officially communicated to the newsroom by publisher William Lewis just 11 days before the 2024 presidential election. This move has ignited substantial controversy both within the publication and among its readership, leading to high-profile resignations and a surge of subscription cancellations.
The Decision and Bezos’ Rationale
Jeff Bezos explained his reasoning in an essay published on The Post’s website, stating that presidential endorsements could create “a perception of bias” and compromise the paper’s image as an impartial news source. Bezos emphasized that the decision to end endorsements was principled and unrelated to his business interests. “Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election,” he wrote. “What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias… Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.” Bezos also pointed to his track record of maintaining editorial independence since he bought the paper in 2013, reassuring readers that his business ties would not affect The Post’s operations.
Publisher William Lewis echoed Bezos’ sentiments, stating that the decision was a return to the paper’s early policy of non-endorsement. Prior to 1976, the paper generally refrained from endorsing candidates, with the exception of backing Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. Lewis emphasized the paper’s commitment to its readers’ independent judgment, saying, “We see [this decision] as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president.”
Internal Reactions and Resignations
The decision has triggered notable backlash within the paper itself. Many opinion writers and editors were upset, particularly since the opinion section had already drafted an endorsement for Vice President Kamala Harris, viewing her as a preferable alternative to former President Donald Trump. Three editorial board members, David Hoffman, Molly Roberts, and Mili Mitra, resigned from their roles on the board but retained other positions at The Post. Hoffman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, expressed his concerns in a letter, describing the decision as “untenable and unconscionable” in light of what he views as a “very real threat of autocracy” represented by Trump’s candidacy. He emphasized that the editorial board’s purpose is to promote democracy, and that withholding an endorsement left the board “without a voice” during a crucial election.
Adding to the criticism, Marty Baron, a former editor who led The Post through significant growth, called the decision “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.” Other prominent journalists, including Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, issued a statement arguing that the decision disregarded “The Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy.” While The Post’s newsroom continues its robust reporting on Trump, some staff members felt their hands were tied by the no-endorsement policy, leaving them unable to convey an explicit stance.
Reader Backlash and Subscription Cancellations
The Washington Post’s decision also sparked outrage among readers, with over 200,000 subscribers reportedly canceling their digital subscriptions as of Monday, marking a significant 8% of the paper’s subscriber base. The cancellation trend became a form of protest, with readers sharing screenshots of their cancellation confirmations on social media. The backlash primarily came from those who expected The Post to take a strong stance against Trump, especially since the paper’s editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020. While the paper’s executives declined to release exact cancellation numbers, the high volume of cancellations underscores the discontent among many readers who feel the decision betrays The Post’s democratic principles.
Notable public figures also weighed in, with Senator Bernie Sanders accusing Bezos of trying to avoid upsetting a possible future Trump administration to protect his business interests. Former Congresswoman Liz Cheney, a prominent Trump critic, added that it appeared as though The Post was “bending the knee to Donald Trump” out of fear, a sentiment that echoed concerns among other readers and journalists.
Bezos Addresses Timing Concerns
Bezos acknowledged that the timing of the announcement — coming less than two weeks before Election Day — was not ideal, attributing it to “inadequate planning, not some intentional strategy.” He admitted that an earlier announcement could have mitigated some of the backlash, as it would have avoided giving the impression of a last-minute decision. Although he refrained from revealing detailed reasons behind the timing, Bezos assured the public that the decision was not a “quid pro quo” move intended to gain favor with any administration.
A Broader Shift in Media Endorsement Practices
The Washington Post’s decision comes amid a trend of declining political endorsements by news organizations. The Los Angeles Times, for example, also recently refrained from endorsing a presidential candidate, a decision that led to resignations within its editorial board. Likewise, Alden Global Capital, an investment firm with stakes in over 200 newspapers, has stopped endorsing political candidates to reduce reader confusion between news and opinion. This trend reflects a shift in journalism toward avoiding direct political endorsements as part of a broader effort to maintain credibility and trust in an increasingly polarized media environment.
In response to these changes, Bezos emphasized the importance of maintaining The Post’s role as an independent news source, noting that criticism is an inherent part of introducing new practices. “Criticism will be part and parcel of anything new,” he said, adding that the paper’s commitment to strong, independent journalism would remain unchanged. As the paper moves forward with this new policy, Bezos and The Post’s leadership hope to reaffirm the publication’s independence while navigating the challenges of today’s polarized political landscape.
This article is based on the following articles:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/25/washington-post-endorsement
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/business/media/washington-post-presidential-endorsement.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/28/business/media/washington-post-endorsement-editorial-board.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/10/27/washington-post-endorsement-fallout
Background Information
1. What Are Political Endorsements?
A political endorsement is when a prominent person or organization publicly supports a candidate running for office. In the context of newspapers, an endorsement typically means the editorial board, a team responsible for forming opinions on behalf of the paper, publishes its recommendation on which candidate they believe is the best choice. While endorsements don’t guarantee a candidate will win, they can influence readers, as people often respect the judgment of trusted newspapers.
2. The Washington Post and Its Role in Journalism
The Washington Post is one of the most well-known newspapers in the United States, with a long history of influential reporting. Founded in 1877, The Post gained national recognition for its in-depth investigative journalism. The newspaper’s reporters, like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, became famous in the 1970s for exposing the Watergate scandal, which led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. The Post’s commitment to uncovering the truth and challenging power has earned it a reputation as a respected and influential source of news, especially in political reporting.
3. Understanding Jeff Bezos’ Role
Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, purchased The Washington Post in 2013. Many people wondered what his ownership would mean for the paper since Bezos is known for his business success and has no journalism background. Bezos has emphasized his respect for the newspaper’s independence and has largely allowed it to operate as a separate entity. However, as the owner, he can make major decisions, such as ending endorsements. Bezos also has business interests connected to government contracts, which some people think could influence his choices regarding the paper’s editorial policies.
4. Editorial Boards and Newsrooms: What’s the Difference?
In a newspaper, the newsroom and the editorial board have distinct roles. The newsroom, composed of reporters and editors, is responsible for gathering and reporting facts and is expected to remain unbiased. The editorial board, however, is a smaller group that writes opinion pieces and editorials, offering the paper’s perspective on issues. This part of the paper can make endorsements, which are based on analysis and judgment rather than strict factual reporting.
5. Media’s Role in a Democracy
A democracy relies on informed citizens who can make decisions, like choosing leaders, based on accurate information. Newspapers like The Washington Post play a vital role in democracy by reporting on important issues, investigating wrongdoing, and offering informed opinions on matters that affect society. When a respected newspaper endorses a candidate, it’s seen as part of its mission to help readers make informed decisions. However, with increasing public division on political issues, some newspapers are reconsidering whether endorsements still align with their goal of impartial journalism.
6. The Trend of Declining Endorsements
In recent years, fewer newspapers have chosen to endorse candidates. Many media companies believe that endorsements can blur the line between factual news and opinion, causing readers to distrust the paper’s objectivity. In 2022, Alden Global Capital, which owns hundreds of newspapers, announced it would stop making endorsements to prevent readers from being confused about what is news and what is opinion. This shift reflects the growing desire for news outlets to appear neutral, especially in today’s highly polarized political environment.
7. Why This Decision Is Controversial
The Washington Post’s decision not to endorse a candidate has sparked intense reactions because many people view it as a step back from actively promoting democracy. Some believe newspapers have a responsibility to take a stance, especially if one candidate appears to pose risks to democratic values. Others argue that by staying neutral, newspapers may actually increase their credibility among readers who want unbiased information. This situation highlights a debate about what the role of a media organization should be in influencing public opinion and participating in democratic processes.
Debate/Essay Questions
- Should newspapers endorse political candidates, or should they remain neutral to maintain their credibility?
- Should the timing of The Washington Post’s decision to end endorsements—right before the election—be viewed as intentional or as poor planning?
- Is Jeff Bezos’ ownership of The Washington Post a conflict of interest, given his other business ties with the government?
- Should media organizations play an active role in protecting democracy by endorsing candidates, or should they simply report the news and let readers decide?
- In cases where a candidate may threaten democratic values, is it ethical for newspapers to stay silent on endorsements?
Please subscribe to Insight Fortnight, our biweekly newsletter!