The Washington Post recently broke with long-standing tradition by announcing that it will not support a candidate in the upcoming US presidential election; This decision sparked intense criticism from readers and staff.

The announcement, which the newspaper framed as a return to its “roots” of disapproval, sparked concerns about the independence of journalism, the role of the press in democracy and whether ownership influences editorial decisions.

Return to roots or risk honesty?

In an op-ed on The Washington Post’s website, CEO William Lewis
declared It would be the first time in 36 years that the newspaper would refrain from supporting a presidential candidate. Lewis stated that this decision was intended to respect readers’ “ability to make their own decisions” and was consistent with the article’s core values.

“We recognize that this will be read in a variety of ways, including tacit approval of one candidate, condemnation of the other, or abdication of responsibility. This is inevitable,” he explained. “We don’t see it that way. “We find this is consistent with the values ​​The Post has always stood for and the values ​​we hope for in a leader.”

This decision not only broke The Post’s tradition of supporting Democratic candidates that began in 1976, but also, according to Lewis, signaled a departure from the expectations placed on the paper by its loyal readership. Only twice since the 1970s has the Post refrained from endorsing presidential races, most recently in 1988.

However, some suggest that this choice may have been influenced by owner Jeff Bezos, who made the final decision. Sources familiar with the decision confirmed that The Post’s editorial team had already drafted an endorsement for U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, but Bezos
ultimately it was decided against publication.

“This was the Washington Post’s decision to disapprove, and I would like to direct you to the publisher’s full statement,” said Kathy Baird, the paper’s chief communications officer.

Readers, Reporters and Resignations

Readers’ reaction was swift; Thousands of people expressed their disappointment on social media and in comment sections. Some long-time subscribers canceled their subscriptions in protest.

“Terrible. I’m canceling my subscription immediately,” one reader wrote on social media. Another, a lifelong Post reader, complained: “Democracy truly dies in darkness. WaPo is darkness.”

Current and former employees also raised strong objections.
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are known for their reporting on the subject.
Watergate scandal, The newspaper’s sources condemned the move, saying it showed “the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy.”

Marty Baron, the paper’s former editor-in-chief, called the decision “an act of cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy a casualty.” Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Carol Leonnig added: “My fear is that this represents tip-toeing deference to a candidate. That spells trouble for what I care deeply about: fearless and unfavorable apocalyptic reporting.”

The decision led to at least one resignation. Columnist and general editor Robert Kagan resigned, saying, “If you don’t have the guts to own a newspaper, don’t own one.” He criticized the decision as “taking a knee as a preemptive measure against who they thought was the likely winner.”

Kagan’s resignation reflects broader discontent at The Post; Internal discussions indicate that other resignations may follow.

Impact on subscriptions

According to internal sources interviewed SemaphoreThe decision appears to have had an immediate impact on subscriptions; nearly 2,000 readers canceled within the first 24 hours; This is an unusually high number for a single day.

However, one employee downplayed this figure, calling it “not statistically significant.” However, the decision highlighted broader shifts in media companies’ approach to endorsements and their role in democratic discourse.

Adding to the controversy, the Los Angeles Times recently made a similar announcement. Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of The LA Times, blocked a planned endorsement of Harris, leading editor Mariel Garza to resign.

“I am resigning because I want to make it clear that it is okay for us to remain silent,” Garza said. Columbia Journalism Review. “In dangerous times, honest people must stand up.” Soon-Shiong defended the choice, suggesting that the article should have presented an analysis of each candidate’s positive and negative policies rather than endorsements.

The New York Times took the opposite stance, supporting Harris and calling her “the only patriotic choice for president.” Meanwhile, the New York Post supported Donald Trump, saying, “America is ready for today’s hero, Donald Trump, to take back the presidency.” he said.

This sharp divide among major media organizations has highlighted a growing ideological divide in American journalism, further fueled by ownership dynamics and political pressures.

As political tensions increased, leading media figures also weighed in. Nancy Gibbs, director of Harvard University’s center for media and public policy, called The Post’s decision “an act of self-sabotage.” New York Times. This, he added, “erodes the bulwarks against autocracy.”

Pulitzer Prize winner and The Post columnists Eugene Robinson and Ruth Marcus also criticized the decision. “This is a moment for the institution to make clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law, and international alliances, and the threat Donald Trump poses to them,” they wrote.

Susan Rice, the former US national security adviser under Barack Obama, echoed their sentiments on social media and expressed her disappointment as a “DC native and lifelong subscriber.”

As a D.C. native and lifelong Post subscriber, I’m disgusted. You lost us.

Opinion | On political support – The Washington Post https://t.co/WKgIEDtkqg

— Susan Rice (@AmbassadorRice) October 25, 2024

Despite these backlash, some readers supported The Post’s decision to remain neutral and praised the move as a step toward unbiased journalism. However, the decision has fueled debate over whether media organizations should support political candidates or focus on providing balanced, fact-based reporting.

With input from agencies

Get the latest updates on the 2024 US Elections