Former Biden White House adviser Susan Rice expressed her strong disapproval on social media after the Washington Post declined to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris, marking a significant setback for Harris’s campaign. Rice, a long-time subscriber to the Washington Post and a native of Washington, D.C., openly voiced her disgust and disappointment with the publication, suggesting that it had failed to uphold the principles of journalistic integrity and accountability that their motto implies, particularly criticizing their decision as hypocritical.
Rice’s emotional response escalated as she ridiculed the Post’s slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” highlighting what she viewed as the publication’s failure to champion democratic values. Her tweets conveyed a sense of betrayal, suggesting that the editorial decision not only undermined Harris but also reflected poorly on the newspaper itself. Rice’s frustration was evident as she questioned the publication’s commitment to its mission, illustrating a rising conflict between political figures and media outlets that are expected to play a role in democratic processes.
Responding to reports from CNN’s Brian Stelter regarding the internal dynamics of the Post, Rice directed her ire toward the editorial department, suggesting that if they were unhappy with the decisions made by ownership, they should consider resigning en masse. This call to action underscores the internal tensions within media organizations, particularly in politically charged environments, where editorial and ownership decisions can clash with journalistic integrity. Rice’s remarks highlighted the complex relationship between political actors and the media, especially during high-stakes election periods.
The Washington Post’s decision not to endorse any candidates in this election cycle is particularly notable, as it marks the first time in 36 years that the publication has refrained from weighing in on a presidential race. This move has been interpreted as a clear shift in the Post’s editorial policy, which has historically sought to influence public opinion in major electoral contests. The implications of this decision extend beyond Harris’s campaign, suggesting a broader retrenchment in the Post’s engagement with political endorsements, an aspect that could shape future electoral landscapes.
Adding to the fallout from the Post’s stance, prominent figures within the political and media landscape reacted to the decision. Notably, Brookings Institute Senior Fellow Robert Kagan resigned from his position as a contributing columnist for the Post following the lack of endorsement, signaling discontent among some who align with the paper’s traditional editorial values. Kagan’s resignation illustrates the ripple effects that such editorial decisions can have, impacting not only political campaigns but also the personnel and morale within media organizations.
In light of these events, the Washington Post’s CEO, William Lewis, articulated a commitment to returning to the publication’s “roots” by abstaining from endorsements in presidential races moving forward. This statement suggests a strategic recalibration for the Post as it navigates its role within a highly polarized political climate. The combination of Rice’s outburst and the Post’s editorial shift paints a complicated picture of contemporary American politics, marked by a tension between political figures, their allies, and the media institutions that are expected to hold them accountable. Overall, these developments reflect a challenging environment for candidates like Harris, who must now grapple with diminished support from influential media outlets as they seek to secure their electoral futures.
