“`html
SAUL LOEB / AFP
- The Washington Post’s decision to refrain from endorsing either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris has sparked considerable debate.
- This follows a similar choice made by the Los Angeles Times, with both publications under billionaire ownership.
- These non-endorsements are being interpreted as political statements, regardless of their original intent.
When does a newspaper’s silence on candidate endorsements become news?
In this instance, it is now. Specifically, The Washington Post has opted not to endorse any presidential candidate for this election year. This announcement comes shortly after the Los Angeles Times made a comparable decision.
A notable similarity between these two decisions is that both newspapers are owned by extremely wealthy individuals. Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of the Los Angeles Times, boasts an estimated net worth of $6 billion; meanwhile, Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post and has an estimated fortune of $194 billion—making him one of the wealthiest people globally.
Moreover, there are additional parallels in how these non-decisions have been communicated. The reasoning behind these choices appears somewhat muddled.
The overarching narrative suggests that observers—including some within their own organizations—interpret these actions as attempts to sidestep potential backlash from Donald Trump or their readerships.
The irony lies in the fact that research indicates newspaper endorsements may not significantly influence elections—especially in today’s highly polarized political landscape.
If either publication had declared its intention to cease endorsements months ago—or even last year—it likely would not have garnered much attention. For example, unless you closely follow media developments like those at The New York Times, you might be unaware that they recently decided against making endorsements for local elections in New York City this past summer.
Instead, with crucial elections approaching rapidly and no clear endorsement forthcoming from either paper, this situation has become headline news.
Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images
Marty Baron—the former executive editor at The Washington Post—criticized this move on social media: “This is cowardice with democracy suffering as a result,” he stated. He further noted that Trump’s response could be perceived as encouragement for further intimidation towards Bezos and others involved with the publication—a troubling display of weakness from an institution historically known for its bravery.”
Will Lewis articulated his rationale behind opting out of endorsing candidates through a public statement framed around returning to historical practices. Notably though previously endorsing Trump’s opponents in recent elections since 2016—the paper had abstained entirely from presidential endorsements prior to 1976.
“We were correct before adopting such practices,” wrote Lewis regarding their return to previous norms.
A separate report indicated that editorial staff had already prepared an endorsement for Kamala Harris but was instructed by Bezos not to publish it according to unnamed sources cited within.
In response regarding inquiries about who made final decisions concerning endorsements Chief Communications Officer Kathy Baird stated: “This was solely a decision made by The Washington Post.” She referred readers back toward Lewis’ earlier comments on behalf of management’s stance on such matters instead.”
Understanding Non-Endorsement Decisions at LA Times
The owner Patrick Soon-Shiong attempted clarification via Twitter/X about why his editorial board chose against issuing any presidential endorsement stating he requested them instead draft “an objective analysis highlighting both positive & negative policies associated with each candidate” allowing readers themselves determine who deserves presidency based upon facts presented rather than opinions expressed directly through traditional means.”
However soon after announcing intentions publicly it became apparent editorial board members opted otherwise remaining silent which Soon-Shiong accepted without contestation.”
This raises questions surrounding how effective communication strategies can lead toward confusion among audiences especially given prior declarations labeling Trump “unfit” alongside claims suggesting imminent threats posed towards democracy itself rendering lists comparing pros versus cons seemingly ineffective when starting point already established beforehand.”
Additionally Mariel Garza editorials editor resigned following lackluster responses received claiming she never received requests outlined above nor felt comfortable continuing work under current conditions citing integrity concerns surrounding future editorial decisions moving forward.”She emphasized importance placed upon largest state-wide publication declining involvement during critical electoral processes while also expressing disappointment over lack transparency exhibited throughout entire ordeal.”
Nika Soon-Shiong daughter voiced her own sentiments online complicating matters further suggesting possible connections between ongoing conflicts abroad influencing overall direction taken regarding non-endorsement choices made locally here back home too.”
I’ve reached out seeking comment or clarification directly pertaining LA Times’ position concerning aforementioned issues raised thus far.’
Returning full circle brings us back again discussing whether owners wield undue influence over content published across various platforms (while ethical implications remain open-ended). Some individuals acquire ownership specifically intending exert control politically speaking (see Rupert Murdoch). Regardless intentions held true behind scenes however outcomes stemming forth resulting actions taken will undoubtedly reflect broader societal implications moving forward into future discussions ahead.’
Update: October 25th 2024 — This article includes updates reflecting statements provided spokesperson representing Washington post organization itself.’
