WaPo and LA Times Face Backlash for Rejecting Harris Endorsement
- The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times did not endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for the upcoming presidential election.
- Critics argue that this decision undermines the newspaper's mission to support democracy and could be influenced by their billionaire owners.
- The lack of endorsement is seen as a surrender to authoritarianism, as it signals a refusal to confront the perceived threat posed by Donald Trump’s potential return to power.
On October 30, 2024, significant media outlets, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, announced their non-endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris in the upcoming presidential election. This marks a divergence from prior practices of these publications, which have historically engaged in the endorsement process. The shift is attributed not to internal editorial decisions but allegedly directed by the owners of these newspapers, Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong, raising concerns over their influence on journalistic integrity. Critics, including John Nichols from The Nation, argue that this move betrays the foundational principles of the press, which is to act as a watchdog and speak truth to power. Nichols asserts that the decision was influenced by a desire not to offend Donald Trump, thereby undermining the publications' responsibilities as independent journalists. Moreover, it is contended that the non-endorsement serves as a covert gift to Trump, which could potentially empower his agenda. Observers view this act as a signal of pre-election cowardice, suggesting that these influential media outlets may be willing to accommodate an increasingly authoritarian political landscape. The implications of this decision extend beyond the immediate electoral context, reflecting a broader concern for the role of billionaire ownership in shaping media narratives and prioritizing political interests over journalistic values.