The biggest surprise of the fall campaign in this extremely tight presidential race was the failure of the two major newspapers to provide the expected support against Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. While voting continues in many states, Los Angeles Times‘ owner and Washington Post‘s publisher made an inexcusably late announcement that they had suddenly abandoned the idea of ​​endorsing presidential candidates.

Withholding support for Harris after both newspapers reported that Trump was unfit for office strikes me as downright cowardly. Even though I served Los Angeles Times‘editorial board I have believed for 18 years that the value of endorsements can reasonably be questioned. Still, the timing here invites speculation that these newspapers are preparing for a possible Trump victory by signaling a willingness to accommodate rather than resist the incoming administration.

With each article, the editorial board had drafted or drafted Harris’s approval and was waiting (and waiting and waiting) for final approval. on wednesday, Los Angeles Times editorial editor Mariel Garza told her staff, including me, that the book’s owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, would not allow any endorsements to be published. He later resigned in protest.

thousands of angry Times Soon-Shiong publicly claimed that after readers at X canceled their subscriptions, she asked the editorial board to write an analysis of “all POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies of EVERY candidate” during their tenure in the White House. But he said the board “chose to remain silent.”

Meaningless. We did not make such a choice. We were ready to support Harris, and Soon-Shiong’s post about X was the first time I or my fellow editorial writers had heard anything about side-by-side analysis. I was thrown under the bus so casually that I resigned on Thursday. My colleague Karin Klein also announced that she will resign.

on friday, to mail Publisher and CEO William Lewis also issued a statement saying his newspaper will not support the presidential race now or in the future. a member to mail The editorial board resigned. Subscribers have been cancelled.

Read: Don’t cancel Washington Post. Cancel Amazon Prime.

Remember, this is the same news organization that adopted the slogan “Democracy dies in darkness” during the first Trump administration. He could also die in broad daylight. In this year’s race, no election ignores Trump’s unfitness for office, which he has repeatedly demonstrated through his dishonesty, his false claims of winning the 2020 election, his criminal convictions, his impeachable offenses, his race agitation, his racial threats. his ability to retaliate against his rivals and many other characteristics that make him a danger to the nation.

Lewis and Soon-Shiong announced that they want to let voters make their own decisions.

I hear some version of this troubling statement every four years, but it usually comes from readers who ask why editorial boards don’t just present the facts, as news stories should, and leave it up to readers to judge. Publishers and newspaper owners should know better.

Editorials express a newspaper’s institutional viewpoint, based on a clearly stated set of values ​​and expressed through logical (and sometimes emotional) arguments supported by evidence. They are shaped by daily mutual discussions between editorial writers, in a process unique to journalism. The editorial board is separate from the newsroom, where reporters must keep their opinions to themselves.

Endorsements and other editorials are similar to a lawyer’s closing statement to a jury after a long trial involving numerous witnesses and evidence. They remind readers of everything they’ve read, seen, and heard, and then put it all together in a compelling presentation. They are filing a lawsuit. And Later readers decide.

Times The editorial board has gone more than three decades without endorsing presidential races; This was largely because readers and the newsroom were so outraged by Richard Nixon’s endorsement for re-election in 1972 that publishers were too cautious (or, rather, too cowardly) to take a stand again. But soon when I got there TimesThe editorial board promised to begin supporting the presidency again in the 2008 primaries. Of course, we argued in an editorial that if we claim to support transparency, voter turnout, and civic engagement, then we have an obligation to make a decision and vigorously defend our choice.

In our pre-ratification editorial series, we invited readers to examine a number of core ideas, such as “liberty” and “the pursuit of happiness,” and to question how these and other principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were implemented. to current difficulties. We then measured the primary candidates against these values, featuring the relatively unknown Barack Obama.

Some critics claim that editorials don’t change anyone’s vote, but that’s beside the point. Even voters who have already made up their minds often seek a well-reasoned explanation for why their choice is the right one. And let’s not be so confident that a strong argument on an editorial page, even one from California or the District of Columbia, won’t affect the outcome of a close race in a district that could be won or lost by just a few votes. Pennsylvania.

Paul Farhi: Is American journalism headed for an ‘extinction-level event’?

Soon-Shiong’s alternative, a choiceless pro and con matrix, would not be an editorial. It’s as if a lawyer decided not to bother with a closing argument and instead said: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, here are some reasons why you should decide for my client, and also a whole host of reasons why you should decide against him.” The proposed side-by-side analysis of Trump and Harris’s policies also makes little sense on its own terms. Trump was a top policymaker during his time as president. Harris was by no means a policymaker as vice president, so the comparison is misplaced. An editorial board will quickly detect this flaw. Soon-Shiong may have missed this, but I found myself wondering if he intended to direct the outcome of the confirmation.

In case of short circuit Times According to the editorial board, Soon-Shiong’s message became even more inconsistent. He said Thursday that his aim was to prevent political division. But adult daughter Nika Soon-Shiong said this in a series of X posts and on a Saturday: New York Times The story is that the family came together and collectively decided not to support Harris in protest of the vice president’s support for Israel. Patrick Soon-Shiong said it was not true. Los Angeles Times on Saturday.

“Nika speaks in her own personal capacity regarding her opinion” but not for this situation Timeshe said.

Instead of a straightforward, well-argued editorial, readers are faced with an indecipherable message and journalistic failure. Someone should write about this. It could be good editorial.