By Fiona Espinoza-Castro
Staff Writer
Prior to the presidential election, the Washington Post decided, after 36 years, to withhold its presidential endorsement, reportedly following owner Jeff Bezos’ suggestion that the newspaper refrain from voicing their preferred candidate.
William Lewis, The Post’s publisher and chief executive, stated that The Post is “returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.” Lewis acknowledged that The Post’s audience might interpret this decision in various ways, potentially leaning toward one candidate. However, The Post views it as the opposite.
“We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects,” Lewis wrote in an opinion piece for The Post.
Two members of the editorial board, Lewis and the opinion section editor David Shipley, had crafted a statement endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris as the 47th president of the United States, according to the New York Times.
The statement awaited final approval but was scrapped and will never see the light of day. Bezos was aware of the editorial board’s endorsement views but ultimately chose not to let their endorsement influence his final decision.
Shipley and Lewis believed that The Post would endorse Harris. However, at the next editorial board meeting, they announced the new non-endorsement policy. The decision caused confusion among board members, and the policy was met with mixed reactions.
Within minutes of this announcement, several writers for The Post found the new policy to be unnecessary. Robert Kagan, an editor who has written for The Post for two decades, sent a resignation email to Shipley within an hour of the noon announcement, according to the New York Times.
In an interview, Kagan said, “The Post has been emphasizing that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy.” He added, “And so this is the election, this is the time when we decided that we’re neutral?”
In an opinion piece made later that day, 21 Post columnists came forward to produce a joint statement that says a massive error was being made by not endorsing a candidate, as one candidate directly threatens “freedom of the press and the values of the Constitution.”
The Post also faced backlash from the public in addition to the complaints from employees.
According to The Post, two internal sources reported that 250,000 readers canceled their subscriptions after the non-endorsement announcement was made. This drastic fall would be 8% of the outlet’s 2.5 million paid circulation, which included both digital and print subscribers, reported NPR.
Marty Baron,the former executive editor of The Post, told NPR, that “if the decision had been made three years ago, two years ago, maybe even a year ago, that would’ve been fine.”
However, since the decision was made quickly and without any deliberation, this harmed the presidential election. According to Baron, it was “inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.”
In his own opinion piece, Bezos argued that the decision would allow the Post to be more credible and unbiased. However, he expressed regret over the timing of the announcement, noting that it was released to the public 11 days before the election.
“I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it,” Bezos wrote. “That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.”
Along with Kagan’s resignation, editorial board members Molly Roberts and David Hoffman also resigned, according to the Hill. Roberts decided to step down officially after she published a public announcement on X, stating, “We want to change minds. But above all else, we want to write with moral clarity. If we can’t do that, what are we doing at all?”
Hoffman, a Pulitzer prize winner, wrote a note to Shipley explaining his decision to leave the board, adding, “I refuse to give up on The Post, where I have spent 42 years.”
Several subscribers from The Post have come out and released their statements criticizing the paper. Dumo Dube, a 19-year-old from North Liberty, Iowa, who recently purchased a year-long subscription, told The Post, “I believed the investment would be worth it, as it’s my civic duty as an American to be informed about the issues facing our country.”
Dube expressed disappointment in the non-endorsement decision, saying that “This nation and its values mean something, and I believed that The Post believed that, too.”
However, Dube feels that The Post’s decision contradicts its stated principles—specifically, its motto, ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness.’ Now Dube said he no longer trusts The Post and questions the newspaper’s commitment to providing Americans with nonpartisan news.
