Newspaper Endorsement Trends Shift as Readers Disapprove

In recent days, two major newspapers in the United States, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, have opted against endorsing a presidential candidate, an unusual decision in the current political climate. This choice has sparked significant backlash from their readership. As a result, three members of The Washington Post's editorial board resigned, and numerous subscribers threatened to cancel their subscriptions, causing a substantial loss of over 200,000 subscribers according to reports. The owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, defended the non-endorsement as a principled act, stating that readers view endorsements as a sign of bias. Amid a backdrop of declining newspaper readership nationwide and losses in journalism jobs, both publications aimed to avoid alienating their audience. Their decision against endorsements was driven by the belief that this could exacerbate the already dwindling subscription numbers. Editorial writers expressed dissent, with some resigning in protest, believing that failing to endorse a candidate represents a lack of journalistic courage. Historically, newspapers were often partisan and highly engaged in political endorsement. However, the modern trends showcase a shift as ownership and editorial decisions weigh heavily against endorsing candidates. The Los Angeles Times acknowledged its own subscriber losses similar to those faced by The Washington Post, indicating a broader issue within the industry. As this situation continues to evolve, both newspapers face the challenge of maintaining readership while navigating the complex landscape of political reporting and public sentiment.