In a surprising shift, The Washington Post has announced it will not endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential election, marking the first time in over 30 years that the newspaper has chosen not to take an editorial stance on a presidential race. This decision, confirmed by the paper’s chief executive Will Lewis, comes just 11 days before one of the most closely watched elections in recent U.S. history, sparking intense backlash both within and outside the newspaper.
“A Return to Our Roots” or a Retreat?
Lewis explained the change as a return to editorial independence, aligning with what he described as The Post’s “roots” in nonpartisan journalism. “We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another,” he said. “We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom.”
But not everyone saw the move as noble. Former Post editor Marty Baron sharply criticized the non-endorsement as “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.” He warned that this decision could embolden figures like former President Donald Trump, who has previously clashed with Jeff Bezos, The Washington Post’s owner and Amazon founder.
Bezos’ Alleged Role in the Decision
An article published by The Washington Post revealed that the editorial board had originally planned to endorse Democratic nominee Kamala Harris over Republican nominee Donald Trump. However, sources within the paper stated that it was Bezos himself who blocked the endorsement.
This isn’t the first clash between Bezos and Trump. In 2019, Amazon claimed in a lawsuit that Trump used “improper pressure” to block Amazon from a $10 billion Pentagon contract as retaliation against Bezos, a frequent critic of Trump. Many see the endorsement decision as Bezos’ attempt to avoid further political friction, though The Post has not confirmed this speculation.
A Controversial Break with Tradition
The Washington Post has a long history of endorsing candidates, supporting Democratic candidates in nearly every election since 1976, with the exception of the 1988 race. For many former and current staff, this tradition represents a crucial role in the paper’s duty to provide guidance to its readers on important civic issues. The paper’s union, the Washington Post Guild, expressed “deep concern” about the timing of the decision, particularly with so little time before the election. The Guild also raised concerns over management’s interference, a sentiment echoed by long-time Post columnist Karen Attiah, who described the move as a “stab in the back.”
Echoes in the Media World
This non-endorsement is part of a larger trend, with other media outlets also shying away from endorsing candidates. Just days before The Post announcement, The Los Angeles Times faced a similar controversy when its billionaire owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, blocked an endorsement of Kamala Harris, leading to resignations from the editorial board in protest.
In contrast, other major newspapers, including The New York Times and The Guardian, have endorsed Harris, intensifying the spotlight on media responsibility in such a high-stakes election. Critics like Representative Ted Lieu emphasized the role of the free press in preserving democracy, cautioning that moves like this could lead to self-censorship in the face of political intimidation.
Looking Ahead
With the decision now public, The Washington Post faces scrutiny from readers, former staff, and media watchers alike, some of whom see this non-endorsement as a troubling precedent. Lewis, however, insists the decision allows The Post to offer readers unbiased coverage, emphasizing that “our job at The Washington Post is to provide…non-partisan news for all Americans.”
As the election draws near, the impact of this choice will become clearer. Whether it was a principled return to neutrality or a retreat in the face of political pressure remains to be seen.