The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times sparked intense debate this week by announcing they will not endorse a presidential candidate for the 2024 election, marking a significant departure from long-standing tradition.
The Post’s publisher, Will Lewis, framed the decision as a return to the paper’s roots as an independent voice — though the editorial board says it had drafted an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris that was allegedly blocked by owner Jeff Bezos (a claim Lewis denies). The Post editor-at-large Robert Kagan publicly resigned in response to the non-endorsement, and a wave of subscription cancellations followed.
At the L.A. Times, owner Patrick Soon-Shiong defended the decision not to endorse, stating he was merely respecting a decision made by his paper’s editorial board. However, several board members openly disputed this, asserting they had prepared an endorsement for Harris that was ultimately blocked by Soon-Shiong. The fallout was swift, with multiple staffers issuing their resignations and readers declaring that they would cancel their subscriptions, prompting the union that represents many Times employees to issue a statement urging them not to do so.
The L.A. Times had endorsed a presidential candidate each cycle since 2004, while the Post’s presidential endorsements date back to 1988. The move by both papers to opt out of backing a candidate in the coming presidential election follows a trend that has been building among newspapers in recent years, as organizations have become wary of alienating subscribers and deepening political divides.
Here’s a closer look at the evolution of such endorsements and the debate over whether newspapers should continue to make them.
Historically, newspaper endorsements — from presidential races to local elections — served as a guide, offering readers insight into candidates’ qualifications through the publication’s editorial lens.
In today’s polarized climate, however, endorsements have turned into a double-edged sword. Critics contend that they can amplify perceptions of bias and partisanship, potentially alienating segments of a paper’s readership.
As a result, many publications have opted out of endorsements entirely.
In 2022, for example, over 200 outlets owned by hedge fund Alden Global Capital, including the Chicago Tribune and Denver Post, announced they would cease endorsing major political candidates, citing public discourse and the prevalence of “culture wars.”
Similarly, the New York Times stated earlier this year that it would stop endorsing candidates in state races, although it would continue backing U.S. presidential candidates. The Minnesota Star Tribune followed suit in August, choosing not to endorse candidates or causes in 2024, pledging instead to offer robust analysis to help readers make informed decisions.
The decisions by the Post and L.A. Times not to endorse a presidential candidate led to multiple resignations. The timing of that choice — less than two weeks before the election — was particularly concerning for some editors.
Former Post executive editor Marty Baron described the move as “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.”
L.A. Times editorials editor Mariel Garza wrote in her resignation letter, “People will justifiably wonder if each endorsement was a decision made by a group of journalists after extensive research and discussion, or through decree by the owner,” according to The Wrap.
According to the Washington Post, L.A. Times journalists Robert Greene and Karin Klein also stepped down in protest, with Greene sharing a statement with the Columbia Journalism Review explaining that the paper’s decision “hurt particularly because one of the candidates, Donald Trump, has demonstrated such hostility to principles that are central to journalism — respect for the truth and reverence for democracy.”
In a statement shared on Facebook, Klein stressed that Soon-Shiong “blocked our voice” when he decided to scrap the editorial team’s endorsement of Harris.
The guild that represents many L.A. Times employees acknowledged that readers have threatened to cancel their subscriptions, while pleading with them not to abandon the publication that pays their salaries.
“Before you hit the ‘cancel’ button: That subscription underwrites the salaries of hundreds of journalists in our newsroom,” the statement said. “Our member-journalists work every day to keep readers informed during these tumultuous times. A healthy democracy is an informed democracy.”
Meanwhile, former Republican Rep. from Wyoming Liz Cheney and author Stephen King announced they’ve canceled their subscriptions to the Post. Thousands of other readers have reportedly followed suit.
Some journalists argue that these non-endorsements prioritize the interests of the papers’ billionaire owners — Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong — over their readers, suggesting they are motivated by a desire to avoid backlash from Donald Trump if he wins the presidency.
Kagan highlighted this perceived conflict of interest in an interview with CNN.
“This is obviously an effort by Jeff Bezos to curry favor with Donald Trump,” he said. “Trump has threatened to go after Bezos’ business. Bezos runs one of the largest companies in America. They have tremendously intricate relations with the federal government. They depend on the federal government.”
As of Sunday, Oct. 27, Bezos has yet to respond publicly to the outcry.
While some papers have stepped back from the practice, others remain committed to endorsing candidates.
As of Sunday, Oct. 27, the New York Times, Boston Globe, Seattle Times, Las Vegas Sun and the New Yorker have endorsed Harris.
Meanwhile, Trump has received backing from the New York Post, the Washington Times and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.