In a dramatic move that has sent ripples across the American media landscape, the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have opted not to endorse a candidate in the upcoming US presidential election, sparking resignations among high-profile editorial staff and cancellations from thousands of subscribers.
For the first time in decades, both publications have chosen neutrality over taking a stand, leading to a fierce debate on the role of media in democratic processes. As Australia approaches its own federal election, the fallout from these decisions raises crucial questions about the responsibilities of media outlets in shaping public opinion, especially when democracy itself may be on the line.
At the heart of the controversy lies a deep ideological divide within these newspapers’ editorial boards. Historically, both the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have endorsed presidential candidates, a tradition dating back over 30 years for the Post and to 2008 for the Times. However, in a surprising announcement, Washington Post publisher Will Lewis stated that the decision not to endorse any candidate in 2024 was a return to the paper’s roots.
“We recognise that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable,” Lewis wrote.
“We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values the Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects”.
Political commentators believe the Washington Post’s position was made by its proprietor and Amazon owner, Jeff Bezos. Donald Trump met with executives at Blue Origin—the space company owned and operated by Bezos – on the day the masthead announced it would not endorse either candidate.
Sifting facts from fiction?
This position was echoed by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong, who cited a desire to let readers make up their own minds without added polarisation. “The process was [to decide]: how do we actually best inform our readers? And there could be nobody better than us who try to sift the facts from fiction”.
In a statement to the New York Times following the announcement, Soon-Shiong’s daughter Nika said that her family had made “the joint decision” not to endorse any candidate in the presidential race.
“As a citizen of a country openly financing genocide, and as a family that experienced South African Apartheid, the endorsement was an opportunity to repudiate justifications for the widespread targeting of journalists and the ongoing war on children,” Nika Soon-Shiong said.
Patrick Soon-Shiong quickly responded, clarifying that his daughter had not played a role in the endorsement.
“Nika speaks in her own personal capacity regarding her opinion, as every community member has the right to do. She does not have any role at the LA Times, nor does she participate in any decision or discussion with the editorial board, as has been made clear many times”.
‘A terrible mistake’
Whatever sparked the decisions, the rationale behind these non-endorsements has struck many, particularly within the editorial teams, as an abdication of responsibility. Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post editor David Hoffman, in his resignation letter, described the move as “untenable and unconscionable,” citing what he believes to be “the very real threat of autocracy in the candidacy of Donald Trump.”
Fellow editorial board member Michele Norris echoed these concerns, calling the decision “a terrible mistake” that betrayed the Post’s commitment to the principles of democracy and its dedication to taking a stand when it matters most.
“In a moment like this, everyone needs to make their own decisions. The Washington Post’s decision to withhold an endorsement that had been written & approved in an election where core democratic principles are at stake was a terrible mistake & an insult to the paper’s own longstanding standard of regularly endorsing candidates since 1976,” she said.
— Molly Roberts (@mollylroberts) October 28, 2024
Over at the Los Angeles Times, editorials editor Mariel Garza and editorial board members Robert Greene and Karin Klein resigned, expressing frustration with the decision not to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris.
“How could we spend eight years railing against Trump and the danger his leadership poses to the country and then fail to endorse the perfectly decent Democrat challenger — who we previously endorsed for the US Senate?” Garza wrote in her letter of resignation to Times executive editor Terry Tang.
“The non-endorsement undermines the integrity of the editorial board and every single endorsement we make, down to school board races”.
Greene said in a statement that he had left the publication in response to its refusal to take a stand on the matter.
“The ‘opportunity’ to instead present a both-sides analysis would properly be done by the newsroom, not by an editorial board, whose purpose is to take a stand and defend it persuasively,” Greene said in a statement.
The repercussions of these non-endorsement decisions have been swift and severe. According to NPR, more than 200,000 readers have cancelled their digital subscriptions to the Washington Post as of midday on Monday (US time). Thousands did the same at the Los Angeles Times. Washington Post readers, many of whom rely on the publication as a watchdog against democratic erosion, voiced frustration, with one saying that they hoped the decision would be “remembered with shame, as an example of what it looks like for an institution to fail to live up to its stated principles when it matters most”.
Former Washington Post editor Martin Baron also openly criticised the paper’s move.
“History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage”.
Australia Watches: What Non-Endorsement Means for International Media
As Australia readies for its federal election, the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times decisions carry weighty implications. If media outlets of such stature can choose neutrality in a high-stakes election year, could similar practices influence editorial boards elsewhere? For Australia, non-endorsements reflect a potential shift in how news organisations position themselves amid increasingly polarised political landscapes.
Australia’s federal election, like the US presidential election, will unfold in an environment rife with misinformation and public distrust in media. The decision to forego endorsement, as noted by Guardian columnist Margaret Sullivan, is “a dereliction of their public duty” that could inadvertently embolden undemocratic forces by creating a void where strong endorsements once stood.
The timing of these non-endorsements is crucial as Donald Trump continues his bid for a second term.
The Los Angeles Times, which had previously criticised Trump as “a train wreck” with “dangerous” policies, is now silent. This neutrality, although framed as impartial, opens the door for political campaigns and public figures to fill the silence, a tactic already spun by Trump’s campaign, remarking on Harris that, “even her fellow Californians know she’s not up for the job.”
Adding to the turbulence surrounding media neutrality and election influence, US Billionaire and owner of social media platform X Elon Musk is now embroiled in a legal battle over alleged voter manipulation tactics. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s office recently filed a lawsuit against Musk and his America PAC, accusing them of running an illegal lottery designed to influence voters. By offering $1 million daily to registered voters in key swing states who pledge support for constitutional values, the scheme has been interpreted by critics as a tactic to gather personal data and mobilise votes for Donald Trump.
With the Australian Federal Election potentially just months away, Australian publishers would do well to heed the warnings of the United States and carefully consider endorsements.
