By withholding endorsements in 2024, the Washington Post and LA Times chose silence when democracy needs clarity. It’s complicated, but also simple.
In a critical decision that aims lofty but smells foul, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post opted out of endorsing a candidate for the US president in the election next Tuesday. We cannot prove what compelled billionaire owners to apparently overrule newsroom sentiment and editorial boards in favor of endorsing Kamala Harris – but it certainly creates the appearance of a craven abdication at what is democracy’s money time.
This isn’t just about staying neutral; as I wrote here last week, there are in fact decent arguments for both parties’ stands on the issues, and in a normal election in a functioning democracy that might justify neutrality. But in this particular case, two leading voices in American thought leadership have turned tail precisely a moment that demands principled clarity. That’s because Donald Trump’s campaign, record and personality all cross the line between when is acceptable and unacceptable. It’s as if Benito Mussolini was on the ballot – a tragic mutation.
There are, of course, credible arguments against endorsements, particularly in an age of widespread media distrust. Critics argue that newspaper endorsements can dilute credibility. Because many readers don’t know there is a wall between the newsroom and the opinion pages, they might suspect bias in the reporting.
Moreover, there’s no rule that endorsements must exist. The modern endorsement practice only took root in U.S. journalism a few decades ago, and studies in any case suggest that they sway very few voters (indeed, in 2016 almost every endorsement in the country went for the eventual loser Democrat Hilary Clinton, even in traditionally conservative outlets).
That’s why there has already been a trend away from endorsements in local elections. It makes sense, at a time when the declining number of remaining local papers need to appeal to the widest possible base of readers, both to survive and as a public service.
However, this reasoning crumbles in the face of Trump’s re-election bid.
Trump is not a standard conservative candidate. His identity is built on antagonism toward democratic principles, disregard for institutional norms, and an authoritarian personality that thrives on sowing division. He is cruel, petty, ignorant, immoral, incurious and corrupt to an unreasonable degree.
Anyone interested in a crash course on the campaign’s zeitgeist should check out the recent Trump rally at Madison Square Garden, where various speakers (not vetted by the campaign, of course) used language like “sick son of a bitch” and “lowlifes” and one called Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage.” This is the stuff of campaigns that want to burn down the house — that think their leader is more important than society. Then again, a normal candidate doesn’t lead a chant against his opponent that goes “lock her up.”
I am not contesting the idea that Harris seems to have some mediocrity in her. But she is a obviously a not-indecent person who respects the legacy that might be placed in her trust. It is a question of whether to lean toward democracy or autocracy. To ignore the calamity of Trump in the name of neutrality is to underestimate the stakes and to shirk the duty of the press to inform, protect, and – yes – to guide.
Trump’s appeal lies in a warped mix of personality cult and policy disregard, where personal grievances fuel dangerous pledges to dismantle institutional checks on executive power. Trump’s former White House chief of staff John Kelly has called him a fascist, and his plans for his second term are a clear blueprint for reducing oversight, undermining democratic guardrails, and stripping away protections for marginalized groups. This vision goes well beyond policy disagreements typical in American politics. Rather than focusing on governing for all Americans, Trump’s approach centers on punishment, revenge, and personal validation — a mix that should compel responsible newsrooms to take a stand.
But, of course, we are not talking about the newsrooms. The decision was made by owners who have massive business interests.
Especially in the case of Post owner and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, he is one of the richest people in the world. One might think that degree of privilege would beget wisdom. That he might realize how much luck played a part, and want to give back. That he might understand he can afford to lose business in order to do the right thing. Well, one might have to think again. Bezos seems to want a few pesos more.
Given that as reported, both the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times newsrooms leaned toward endorsing Harris, what has happened indeed raises a different and even more troubling concern than neutrality: independence. Yes, owners have rights – they’re the ones on the hook financially. But a newspaper worth reading is also one that does not serve the hidden business interests of its owners – and wise ones have been trodden carefully. When billionaires influence editorial choices on issues of national importance, it risks a slide into newsrooms dictated by financial stakes, not journalistic integrity.
And if even major institutions like the Post and Times are vulnerable to ownership pressure, what does this imply for smaller, more financially dependent publications? The message is devastating – and whether or not it’s true, that’s how it will be perceived, further eroding trust in the media.
Refusing to endorse amid a Trump candidacy isn’t a neutral choice — it’s a silent endorsement of the mutation that Trump has made of American politics. A refusal to guide the public implies that both candidates fall within the bounds of normalcy, effectively downplaying Trump’s utter ridiculousness, and the real peril that he poses.
Journalism, at its best, is not just a record of who said what. There is always subjectivity – for example, in choose what to report out of the trillions of human actions each day. Journalism at its core is a bulwark against the erosion of democratic principles – prepared to speak truth to power, champion ideals, and provide clarity for the public even when populism has made truth unpopular. By choosing silence now, the LA Times and the Washington Post abandoned this role.
Under its iconic editor Marty Baron, the Post adopted the odd – but true and memorable – tagline Democracy Dies in Darkness. How odd that this is now the paper which has come to symbolize a trust self-evident to anyone who has confronted an autocracy: Democracy dies in cowardice.
