Non-endorsements by Washington Post, LA Times disappoint loyal readers
The total number of newspapers supporting a presidential candidate has decreased due to the industry’s financial issues over the last twenty years, partly because owners believe it’s unwise to alienate certain subscribers during a time of political division.
However, in the past week, both The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have upset readers for exactly the opposite reason: by opting not to endorse any candidate.
The repercussions from these choices continued on Monday, with Post owner Jeff Bezos taking the uncommon step of defending the decision publicly in his own newspaper’s columns. Three members of the Post’s editorial board resigned, and some journalists urged readers to refrain from expressing their dissatisfaction by cancelling subscriptions. Many have already done so.
In a message to readers, Bezos labelled it a principled choice to forego endorsements. He noted that people largely don’t care and view it as a sign of bias. His remarks came just hours after NPR reported that over 200,000 individuals had canceled their subscriptions to The Washington Post.
If NPR’s report is accurate, that would be a significant setback for an outlet that has already been losing money and reducing staff despite having more than 2.5 million subscribers last year. A spokesperson for the Post declined to comment on the report.
Subscribers have been quitting in recent days.
The Times has admitted to losing thousands of subscribers due to its own decision.
Both newspapers had reportedly prepared editorials backing Democrat Kamala Harris but, at the insistence of Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong at the Times, chose not to endorse anyone. Post publisher Will Lewis referred to it as “a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make their own decisions.”
By making their announcements just two weeks before Election Day, however, the newspapers opened themselves up to criticism that their publishers were attempting not to upset Republican Donald Trump in case he regained power. “It seemed like they weren’t making a principled choice,” stated John Woolley, co-director of the American Presidency Project at the University of California-Santa Barbara.
Former Post editor Martin Baron commented on social media that the decision revealed “concerning timidity at an institution known for its bravery” and suggested that Trump would interpret it as a further enticement to intimidate Bezos.