Dying In Darkness?”: Washington Post Ends 30-Year Candidate Endorsements

Washington, D.C.: In a surprising shift, the Washington Post announced it will not endorse a candidate in the upcoming presidential election—marking the first time in over three decades the paper has refrained from taking a stance. The decision, coming just days before the 2024 election, has led to heated reactions from former editors, current staff, and the general public.

Publisher Will Lewis Cites Return to Independent Journalism

Will Lewis, the Washington Post’s publisher, stated that this decision reflects a “return to our roots,” with the paper choosing not to endorse presidential candidates. Lewis noted that the Washington Post’s responsibility lies in providing non-partisan journalism, allowing readers to form their own opinions on the candidates. This new approach, he emphasized, aligns with the values of “character and courage in service to the American ethic.”

Backlash from Staff and Media Figures

The reaction among Washington Post staffers and former leadership has been overwhelmingly negative. Marty Baron, former executive editor of the Post, criticized the move as “cowardice,” warning that it could embolden figures like Donald Trump to target the paper’s owner, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. Pulitzer Prize-winning editor David Maraniss expressed disappointment, while longtime columnist Robert Kagan reportedly resigned in protest.

Criticism from Notable Public Figures

Susan Rice, former U.S. ambassador to the UN, condemned the decision as “hypocritical,” noting that it undermines the paper’s “Democracy Dies in Darkness” slogan. Multiple sources report that the Post’s editorial board had prepared an endorsement for Vice President Kamala Harris, only for it to be overruled by top executives. This sudden reversal left staff “stunned,” with several stating they were shocked and disappointed.

A Broader Trend Among Major Newspapers?

The Post’s decision mirrors a similar move from the Los Angeles Times, whose publisher, Patrick Soon-Shiong, also blocked a planned endorsement of Harris earlier this week. This shift has sparked a debate within the journalism community about the role of editorial endorsements in upholding democratic values, especially in highly polarized times. In contrast, other prominent newspapers, like the New York Times and the Guardian, have endorsed Kamala Harris as “the only choice” for president.

Reactions Reflect Larger Concerns Over Media’s Role in Democracy

The Washington Post Guild, representing many of the paper’s journalists, released a statement expressing “deep concern” over the decision, which they argue deviates from the role of the editorial board in helping readers navigate consequential choices. The Guild claims some readers have already canceled their subscriptions, feeling let down by a paper once regarded as a standard-bearer for democratic principles.

As the Washington Post pivots towards a more neutral stance in its editorial practice, the backlash it faces underscores ongoing tensions within journalism about the responsibility to endorse leaders and the impact such decisions have on public trust.