In a shocking turn of events, two of the most influential newspapers in the United States, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, have announced that they will not be making presidential endorsements for the upcoming 2024 election. This decision marks a stark departure from the papers’ long-standing traditions and has drawn heavy criticism from media experts and former employees alike.
The choice facing American voters this November could not be more clear-cut. On one side stands the incumbent, a controversial figure mired in legal troubles and impeachment history, known for his divisive rhetoric and assaults on democratic norms. His challenger, meanwhile, is a seasoned politician with a track record of upholding traditional American values and institutions.
Given the high stakes, many expected the nation’s top newspapers to weigh in with their recommendations, as they have done for decades. Instead, both the Post and the Times have opted for silence, a move that critics say amounts to a dereliction of their journalistic duty and a tacit normalization of the incumbent’s behavior.
Billionaire Owners, Editorial Upheaval
The decisions at the two papers appear to have come from the very top. The LA Times, owned by billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong since 2018, saw its editorial page editor Mariel Garza resign in protest over the owner’s directive to kill the planned endorsement. “I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent,” Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review. Several other Times editorial board members followed suit.
At the Washington Post, which has been under the ownership of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos since 2013, the situation is murkier. Editorial page editor David Shipley claimed ownership of the non-endorsement decision, but many believe it came from publisher Will Lewis, or possibly even Bezos himself. Former Post editor Marty Baron slammed the move as a “disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage,” and predicted it would only embolden the incumbent to further intimidate Bezos.
An Abdication of Journalistic Responsibility?
While the papers may frame their stance as one of principled neutrality, media ethicists and political analysts argue that it amounts to anything but. By refusing to take a stand, they say, the Post and Times are abdicating their responsibility to help inform and guide the electorate.
It tacitly equalizes two wildly distinct candidates, one of whom has tried to overturn a presidential election and one of whom has not.
Jelani Cobb, Dean of Columbia Journalism School
Other major news outlets, such as The New York Times and The Guardian, have upheld the endorsement tradition, unequivocally recommending the challenger as “the only patriotic choice.” Their editorials highlight the incumbent’s moral unfitness for office and the dangers his reelection would pose to American democracy.
A Dangerous Precedent
Media observers worry that the LA Times and Washington Post are setting a troubling precedent that could have ripple effects throughout the industry. If two of the nation’s most prestigious papers won’t take a stand against a singularly unfit candidate, what message does that send to smaller outlets facing similar pressures?
There are also concerns about the impact on the papers’ own hard-working journalists, whose reporting and commentary on the candidates now seems undercut by their organizations’ official silence. Readers, too, may reasonably conclude that the papers have been cowed by the threat of retribution from an incumbent known for his hostility to the press.
A Critical Moment for American Democracy
Ultimately, critics say, the Post and Times have picked a terrible moment to sit on the sidelines. With faith in both the electoral process and the media at historic lows, and with basic democratic principles under attack, newspapers have a greater obligation than ever to take a clear stand in defense of truth, accountability, and the rule of law.
This is no moment to stand at the sidelines – shrugging, speechless and self-interested. With the most consequential election of the modern era only days away, the silence is deafening.
Margaret Sullivan, media columnist
As voters prepare to render their verdict, two of American journalism’s most storied institutions have rendered one of their own. Through their refusal to endorse, the LA Times and the Washington Post have made a choice – but not the courageous one that this perilous moment demands.
