They say it is good to be king. In this case, the kingdom is the Washington Post, with Jeff Bezos as its ruler. He decided that the Washington Post would not endorse Kamala Harris, sparking a firestorm at the media giant’s workplace.The non-endorsement decision resulted in a $200,000 loss in subscribers.
Subscriber Backlash and Media Trust
The Washington Post’s decision to refrain from endorsing a presidential candidate for the first time in 36 years resulted in a loss of over 200,000 digital subscribers, or roughly 8% of its paid circulation. The shift has sparked strong internal and external criticism, raising fundamental questions about the media’s role in political landscapes. Traditional endorsements, which many readers expect from well-known media outlets, typically guide their political decisions.
Given the current level of political polarization, many newspapers have refrained from making endorsements for fear of alienating readers. The Los Angeles Times faced similar pressures and backlash, emphasizing the decline in newspaper endorsements of political candidates, which is driven in part by financial considerations.
An endorsement of Kamala Harris was drafted by Post staffers but had yet to be published, according to sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, according to the same sources. https://t.co/WC9fovTcvB
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) October 25, 2024
Defending the Decision
Jeff Bezos, the owner of The Washington Post, defended the decision as a necessary measure to combat potential bias. Bezos stated, “There is no quid pro quo at work here,” emphasizing his intention to remain neutral. This decision, however, drew strong criticism from previous editors such as Martin Baron and columnists, who saw it as undermining the newspaper’s traditional role in democracy discussions.
“The Washington Post’s decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake.” – a joint column signed by 17 Post columnists.
Bezos’ move has been linked to potential conflicts of interest with his other ventures, such as Blue Origin’s government contracts. Despite his claims of principled intentions, the backlash raises further questions about his commitment to maintaining editorial independence in the face of business interests.
Washington Post loses more than 200k subscriptions following non-endorsement, according to report https://t.co/pdNtGHdgyK
— Daily Bulletin (@ivdailybulletin) October 29, 2024
Impact on Journalistic Independence
The editorial decision emphasizes long-standing difficulties in preserving journalistic independence. Staff resignations and public criticism highlight the internal conflict caused by this decision. With historical endorsement precedents and a lack of clear communication of the editorial board’s stance, uncertainty grows about The Post’s future approach to political commentary.
“The decision to end presidential endorsements was made entirely internally and neither campaign nor candidate was given a heads-up or consulted in any way at any level. Any reporting to the contrary is simply incorrect.” – William Lewis.
Newspapers, such as The Oregonian, continue to endorse candidates based on their perceived duty to their audience. However, with such significant shifts, media institutions must reconsider their roles, potentially ushering in a broader change in the industry regarding political endorsements.
Sources:
