Newspaper endorsements/ Washington Post/ LA Times/ 2024 election/ reader backlash/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times recently chose not to endorse any candidate in the presidential race, leading to subscriber dissatisfaction and high-profile resignations. Both publishers cite neutrality, but readers argue the timing signals weakness. The backlash highlights a broader trend among newspapers to avoid endorsements amid political polarization.
Newspaper Non-Endorsements and Reader Reaction: Quick Look
- Declining Endorsements: Major newspapers have pulled back from endorsing candidates in recent years.
- Reader Backlash: Washington Post and LA Times face subscriber loss and staff resignations over non-endorsements.
- Publisher Perspectives: Washington Post’s Bezos defends decision, calls it a stand for neutrality.
- Media Trends: Concerns rise over whether endorsements alienate readers in a polarized landscape.
Washington Post, LA Times Non-Endorsements Trigger Subscriber Backlash
Deep Look
The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, two of the nation’s largest newspapers, have chosen not to endorse a presidential candidate for the 2024 election, a move that has led to widespread subscriber discontent and criticism from within their own ranks. Despite a long history of candidate endorsements, the two media outlets are part of a growing trend in journalism to step back from political endorsements amid concerns that they risk alienating readers in an increasingly polarized environment.
At the Washington Post, the fallout has been particularly intense. Owner Jeff Bezos defended the decision in an editorial, stating it was based on a principle of neutrality. He suggested that endorsements may be seen as a sign of bias, which could harm the paper’s relationship with readers. However, Bezos’s remarks came just hours after NPR reported a subscriber drop of over 200,000 due to the non-endorsement decision. Although the Post declined to comment on this number, the impact is evident, as three members of the editorial board resigned, and many journalists urged readers not to cancel their subscriptions despite their own frustrations.
The Los Angeles Times faced similar backlash after also deciding not to endorse Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, despite initially drafting an endorsement. Publisher Patrick Soon-Shiong led the push for neutrality, and Times editor Will Lewis explained it as a way of respecting readers’ ability to form their own opinions. However, readers expressed disappointment over the timing of the announcement, less than two weeks before Election Day. Critics argue that the timing undercut any sense of genuine neutrality, with some speculating the move was meant to avoid alienating conservative readers if Donald Trump wins the election.
Erosion of Endorsement Tradition
The tradition of newspaper endorsements in U.S. presidential elections dates back to the 19th century, when most newspapers were openly partisan. Even as objectivity became a more common journalistic standard in the 20th century, editorial boards continued to make endorsements as a separate function from news reporting. However, in recent decades, the number of newspapers endorsing candidates has declined significantly. In 2008, 92 of the top 100 U.S. newspapers endorsed either Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, but by 2020, only 54 newspapers chose between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
This year, political analyst John Woolley, co-director of the American Presidency Project at the University of California-Santa Barbara, noted that the trend has further accelerated. Media business analyst Rick Edmonds of the Poynter Institute suggests that endorsements now risk alienating readers in a way they didn’t in the past, adding, “The solution is just not to do them.”
Some papers, however, have opted to buck the trend. In Oregon, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ this year after a period of neutrality, while The Plain Dealer in Cleveland endorsed Kamala Harris, with Editor Chris Quinn noting that readers felt a non-endorsement would be a “betrayal.”
Pushback from Inside and Outside
For the Washington Post, the backlash has been particularly notable, with respected former editor Martin Baron and reporting legends Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein expressing disappointment. Columnists Robert Kagan and Michele Norris also announced they were leaving in protest. Baron characterized the decision as “disturbing spinelessness” at an institution known for its commitment to holding power accountable, while others noted that Trump might see this neutrality as an invitation to intimidate Bezos.
In Los Angeles, Times editorial writer Karin Klein also resigned, writing in the Hollywood Reporter that the late decision sent a mixed message about neutrality, especially in a city with a largely liberal readership. Klein criticized Soon-Shiong’s decision to override the editorial board, arguing that it contradicted the very neutrality it was meant to uphold.
The timing of the announcements also drew regret from Bezos himself, who acknowledged that waiting until just before the election made the decision appear more strategic than neutral. In an editorial defending the move, Bezos stated, “I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it.”
The debate has left journalists in a difficult position, with some concerned that the loss of subscribers could lead to budget cuts and layoffs. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank urged readers not to cancel, warning that such decisions ultimately harm journalists’ ability to produce quality work. “The more cancellations there are, the more jobs will be lost, and the less good journalism there will be,” he said. In a separate opinion, Milbank expressed his own frustration over the decision but noted that Bezos had not interfered in the paper’s editorial operations beyond this decision.
The Changing Role of Endorsements
The question of whether endorsements still matter remains divisive among media professionals. Chris Quinn of The Plain Dealer explained that he felt the paper’s responsibility was to serve its readers, regardless of the political climate. Similarly, The Oregonian reversed its previous stance, stating that feedback from the community prompted the return to endorsements. While some media experts argue that endorsements no longer influence voters significantly, many readers still view the lack of an endorsement as a stance in itself, leading to accusations of cowardice or hidden bias.
The recent decisions at the Washington Post and LA Times underscore the pressures on traditional media organizations to balance journalistic values with business realities in a politically divided era. With some subscribers vowing to leave, the question of whether endorsements alienate or engage readers remains a point of tension as the media industry continues to evolve.
