On Friday, Robert Kagan, a prominent editor-at-large at the Washington Post, announced his resignation following the paper’s decision not to endorse any candidate in the upcoming presidential election, specifically Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. Kagan confirmed this to Semafor’s Max Tani, indicating that the paper’s shift toward a non-endorsement stance drove his departure. The Washington Post’s editorial leadership articulated this decision in an opinion piece by CEO William Lewis, highlighting a return to the paper’s historical tradition of abstaining from endorsements in presidential races.
The Washington Post’s editorial board explains that they will not endorse any presidential candidates in the current election cycle or in future ones, asserting this choice reflects a commitment to their foundational principles. Referencing their historical stance, the paper cited its non-endorsement of candidates since the 1960 election, emphasizing that such a practice has been consistent, with only one notable deviation during the 1952 election when they supported General Eisenhower. The board concluded that while hindsight might have validated previous endorsements, it has ultimately convinced them that avoiding formal endorsements might be a wiser path for a newspaper.
Criticism of this decision came from within the journalistic community, including former executive editor Marty Baron. Baron expressed that the decision reflected a kind of “cowardice,” implying that it undermines the paper’s credibility and responsibility to provide informed guidance to its readership. He warned that the decision could be interpreted by Trump as an encouragement to further intimidate the publication’s owner, Jeff Bezos. This perspective indicates tension within the media landscape regarding the role of newspapers in guiding public opinion through endorsements.
The Washington Post’s non-endorsement stance mirrors a broader trend, as seen recently with the Los Angeles Times, which also withheld endorsements despite its previous support for major Democratic candidates in past elections. The Los Angeles Times refusal to endorse any candidate for this election signals a significant shift in media practices, hinting at a cautious approach to political endorsements amidst growing polarization and distrust within the electoral landscape. This raises questions about the evolving engagement strategies of influential publications amid a changing political climate.
Compounding the situation for Harris are the non-endorsements from significant organizations, such as the Teamsters Union, showcasing her struggles within key support circles. Polling data suggests that a significant majority of Teamsters members lean toward Trump over Harris, which could be indicative of broader concerns among various voter demographics regarding her candidacy. This lack of endorsements from both major media outlets and influential labor organizations poses challenges for her political viability as she aims for reelection.
The decision by the Washington Post and the ongoing dynamics surrounding Harris’s candidacy reflect a complicated interplay of media influence, voter sentiment, and political strategy. The established tradition of scrutiny towards endorsements demonstrates the delicate balance that newspapers must negotiate in their role as impartial disseminators of information versus advocates for specific political candidates. As the election season unfolds, these developments will likely continue to shape discourse and influence voter perceptions across the political spectrum.
