US election: Why did LA Times, Washington Post skip candidate endorsement?

Editors at both legacy media outlets have resigned following the billionaire owner's decision to shun endorsing any candidate in this presidential election

As the 2024 US presidential election approaches, news outlets across the United States are revealing their candidate endorsements, albeit fewer in number than in previous elections. With only 80 media houses backing Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and fewer than 10 supporting Republican candidate Donald Trump, this year’s race has underscored distinct divides in media perspectives, as reported by Fox News.

 

Among notable endorsements, the New York Post recently supported Trump, labelling him the "right choice."

 

Media endorsements split along party lines

 

Of the 80 media houses endorsing Kamala Harris, major publications include the New York Times, Boston Globe, The New Yorker, Seattle Times, Denver Post, Los Angeles Sentinel, and San Antonio Express. The New York Times, for instance, endorsed Harris, calling her “the only patriotic choice for president” and asserting that “Donald Trump is not fit to be president.” Trump’s endorsements, meanwhile, come from conservative publications such as the New York Post, The Washington Times, and Las Vegas Review-Journal.

 

This split in media endorsements reflects a broader polarisation within American media, with traditional lines clearly defining candidate preferences. However, in an unusual move, some historically endorsing outlets are opting to sit out this election.  Read More: US election 2024: Which celebs are endorsing Trump & who's backing Harris?

 

Legacy media refrain from endorsements this election

 

This election cycle has seen certain legacy outlets forgo endorsements, with the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post notably refraining from backing any candidate.

 

This marks a break from tradition; for instance, the Los Angeles Times previously endorsed Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden but has opted not to support a candidate in 2024. Mariel Garza, the LA Times editorial board chief, resigned over this decision, citing it as hypocritical and inconsistent with the paper's values.

 

Similarly, on October 25, The Washington Post announced its decision to abstain from endorsing a candidate for the first time in nearly 40 years, sparking both internal and external criticism. Following this decision, the Post’s editor-at-large, Robert Kagan, resigned in protest, while 11 Washington Post columnists co-authored a piece condemning the non-endorsement.  Ironically, the news was broken by the Post itself that it is not going to endorse any candidate, showing clear internal fissures between the editorial board and the billionaire-owner Bezos.

 

Additionally, the move led to approximately 2,000 subscriber cancellations, underscoring reader discontent.

 

Why are media endorsements significant in US elections?

 

Media endorsements have historically played a significant role in American elections. The legacy of candidate endorsements dates back to the Chicago Tribune’s support of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Another influential endorsement came during the Great Depression, when The New York Times endorsed Franklin D Roosevelt in 1932.

 

Experts argue that newspapers justify endorsements based on careful candidate analysis, providing readers with what they describe as informed guidance. Endorsements can be particularly impactful in close elections, where support from high-profile figures—such as Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama in 2008—can influence public opinion and voting behaviour.

 

Endorsements often reflect the political leanings of outlets, reinforcing partisan divides among readers. This trend is evident in the 2024 election, with traditionally liberal outlets like The New York Times endorsing Harris, while conservative ones like the New York Post back Trump. For readers, these endorsements not only suggest candidate quality but also signal the ideological stance of news sources, making endorsements pivotal in swaying undecided voters.

 

Yet, this election has seen some major publications avoiding endorsements altogether. Both the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post have refrained from endorsing Harris or Trump. Critics argue that these non-endorsements indicate a reluctance among media outlets to risk backlash, particularly in a possible second Trump presidency.

 

Garza and Kagan both highlighted a growing hesitancy within some outlets to openly challenge Trump, with Kagan remarking, “If you don’t have the b***s to own a newspaper, don’t.”

 

Why are billionaire media owners cautious about election endorsements?

 

Ownership of major publications appears to be influencing this trend. At the Los Angeles Times, Garza revealed that Patrick Soon-Shiong, who acquired the paper in 2018, directed the editorial board to refrain from endorsing Harris, leading to her resignation. Similarly, The Washington Post, owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, faced speculation that the decision not to endorse Harris was driven by a desire to avoid antagonising Trump, which could have financial implications.

 

In a column, Washington Post publisher William Lewis framed the decision as a return to the paper’s “roots of non-endorsement,” noting that the publication did not regularly endorse presidential candidates until 1976, beginning with Jimmy Carter. However, this reasoning has not appeased critics, who question the commitment to the paper’s motto, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

 

Some viewed the Post’s stance with scepticism, speculating that Bezos may be trying to avoid potential repercussions from Trump if he returns to office.

 

Concerns are mounting that Trump’s potential for retaliation has created an environment where media outlets may feel pressured to avoid controversy. With billionaires Patrick Soon-Shiong and Jeff Bezos at the helms of the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post, respectively, fears have arisen that business interests may be influencing editorial decisions, especially with Trump’s possible re-election looming.

 

This election cycle, both public and private institutions have been accused of appeasing Trump to avoid backlash, raising concerns over press independence. Observers worry that a Trump re-election could see renewed efforts to target critics, prompting media owners to withhold endorsements to safeguard business interests. 

Line between editorials and news 

Critics have also pointed out the increasingly blurred line between editorial and news coverage at major publications like the Washington Post. They have expressed concern that the distinction between the editorial board’s opinions and the newsroom’s reporting is crucial for maintaining journalistic standards, and withholding endorsements suggest a retreat from this principle. 

 

This shift risks undermining the credibility of the news organisations, as editorial choices are influenced by fears of political retribution. It is being argued that when institutions avoid taking clear editorial stances, they inadvertently weaken their role as watchdogs in democracy. This dynamic not only affects the internal culture of these newsrooms but also has broader implications for public trust in journalism, as audiences may perceive a lack of independence in how news is reported and opinions are formed.

 

Looking ahead, as ownership of major media outlets consolidates among influential billionaires, questions of editorial independence are likely to persist, especially in high-stakes political contexts. Whether this trend toward neutrality will build public trust or further polarise audiences remains uncertain.