The Washington Post’s decision not to endorse a presidential candidate has sparked a firestorm, with over 200,000 subscribers canceling their subscriptions.
At a Glance
- The Washington Post lost 8% of its paid circulation after deciding not to endorse a presidential candidate
- Owner Jeff Bezos blocked the endorsement of Kamala Harris less than two weeks before Election Day
- The decision has caused internal turmoil, with resignations from columnists and editorial board members
- Critics argue the move undermines the paper’s role in upholding democratic values
A Controversial Decision
In a move that has sent shockwaves through the media landscape, The Washington Post, one of America’s most prestigious newspapers, has decided to break with its 36-year tradition of endorsing presidential candidates. This decision, made less than two weeks before Election Day, has resulted in a staggering loss of over 200,000 digital subscriptions, representing about 8% of the paper’s paid circulation.
The controversy began when Jeff Bezos, the billionaire owner of The Washington Post, intervened to block the paper from endorsing Kamala Harris for president. This last-minute decision has not only angered subscribers but has also caused internal turmoil, with several columnists and editorial board members resigning in protest.
Backlash and Criticism
The backlash against The Washington Post’s decision has been swift and severe. Many readers and media experts view this move as a retreat from the paper’s responsibility to provide guidance in critical political moments. Critics argue that by choosing not to endorse, the Post is failing to take a stand against perceived threats to democracy.
“It’s a colossal number,” former Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli told NPR. “The problem is, people don’t know why the decision was made. We basically know the decision was made but we don’t know what led to it.”
Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron didn’t mince words, calling the decision “disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.” This sentiment has been echoed by many current and former journalists at the paper, who see the move as a betrayal of the Post’s values and mission.
Defending the Decision
Despite the criticism, Jeff Bezos has defended the decision as a principled stand against perceived bias. In a statement, Bezos insisted, “No quid pro quo of any kind is at work here,” adding that he did not consult or inform any candidate about his decision.
“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
However, this explanation has done little to quell the controversy. Many see the timing of the decision as suspicious, coming so close to the election and after preparations had reportedly been made to endorse Harris. The abrupt change has led to speculation about potential conflicts of interest related to Bezos’s other business ventures, including Blue Origin’s contracts with the government.
Implications for Media Trust
This controversy highlights the challenges facing media organizations in an era of intense political polarization. As newspapers grapple with financial struggles and the desire to avoid alienating subscribers, many are reconsidering their approach to presidential endorsements. The number of newspapers endorsing candidates has decreased significantly, with only 54 of the largest newspapers endorsing in 2020 compared to 92 in 2008.
“An independent newspaper might someday choose to back away from making presidential endorsements. But this isn’t the right moment, when one candidate is advocating positions that directly threaten freedom of the press and the values of the Constitution” – a joint column signed by 17 Post columnists
The Washington Post’s decision and the resulting backlash serve as a stark reminder of the delicate balance media outlets must strike between maintaining editorial independence and meeting reader expectations. As the dust settles on this controversy, it remains to be seen how this will impact public trust in journalism and the role of media endorsements in shaping political discourse.
Sources:
- Newspaper non-endorsements at Washington Post, LA Times fit a trend, but their readers aren’t happy
- Over 200,000 subscribers flee ‘Washington Post’ after Bezos blocks Harris endorsement
- Washington Post Hit With 200,000-Plus Subscriber Cancelations After Jeff Bezos Nixed Presidential Endorsement: Report
