The political Left fumed online Friday afternoon after The Washington Post announced that it was not going to be making any presidential endorsements this year.
“The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election,” the Editorial Board said in a statement. “Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.”
The paper cited its past position from more than five decades ago of not endorsing presidential nominees.
“We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility,” the paper said. “That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way.”
The announcement came after The Los Angeles Times announced this week that it was also not making an endorsement. The head of the LA Times Editorial Board resigned over the decision.
A likely contributing factor in the newspaper’s decision is that its owner Jeff Bezos does not want to risk angering former President Donald Trump should Trump beat Harris, an outcome that appears to be more likely than not.
A draft of the paper’s endorsement of Harris had already been written, but it was reportedly killed by Bezos.
Bezos is trying to catch up and compete with Elon Musk’s SpaceX with his own rocket company that hopes to win lucrative government contracts.
MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ COMING TO DAILYWIRE+ OCT. 28
Numerous Washington Post employees and other Democrats fumed online over the lack of an endorsement.
Far-left Washington Post editor Karen Attiah posted on X following the announcement: “Jesus christ.”
The Post’s climate change alarmist reporter, Brianna Sacks, responded to the news by writing: “We won a Pulitzer for public service for our coverage of the Jan. 6 insurrection.”
Marty Baron, the paper’s former executive editor, said that the decision to not endorse Harris was “cowardice” with “democracy as its casualty.”
“@realdonaldtrump will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner @jeffbezos (and others),” he claimed. “Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”
“The first step towards fascism is when the free press cowers in fear,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA).
Former Obama official Ben Rhodes posted: “There is no logic that isn’t damning as to why the Washington Post and LA Times feel they can endorse in every local, state and federal election other than a presidential race.”
“It’s not that these endorsements tip the balance in an election; it’s that self-censoring because you are afraid of retribution from an authoritarian tells you everything you need to know about the priorities of management,” he wrote.
He continued, “What’s truly depressing is how much this is a mirror to the rot in the American economy and society today: you end up governed by self-interested autocrats when there is no value higher than personal profit.”
“A lot of the Russian oligarchs who owned media properties in the late 90s helped or enabled Putin’s rise to power thinking it would help them,” he concluded. “Today, Putin controls every major outlet in Russia.”
[#item_full_content]
[[{“value”:”
The political Left fumed online Friday afternoon after The Washington Post announced that it was not going to be making any presidential endorsements this year.
“The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election,” the Editorial Board said in a statement. “Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.”
The paper cited its past position from more than five decades ago of not endorsing presidential nominees.
“We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility,” the paper said. “That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way.”
The announcement came after The Los Angeles Times announced this week that it was also not making an endorsement. The head of the LA Times Editorial Board resigned over the decision.
A likely contributing factor in the newspaper’s decision is that its owner Jeff Bezos does not want to risk angering former President Donald Trump should Trump beat Harris, an outcome that appears to be more likely than not.
A draft of the paper’s endorsement of Harris had already been written, but it was reportedly killed by Bezos.
Bezos is trying to catch up and compete with Elon Musk’s SpaceX with his own rocket company that hopes to win lucrative government contracts.
MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ COMING TO DAILYWIRE+ OCT. 28
Numerous Washington Post employees and other Democrats fumed online over the lack of an endorsement.
Far-left Washington Post editor Karen Attiah posted on X following the announcement: “Jesus christ.”
The Post’s climate change alarmist reporter, Brianna Sacks, responded to the news by writing: “We won a Pulitzer for public service for our coverage of the Jan. 6 insurrection.”
Marty Baron, the paper’s former executive editor, said that the decision to not endorse Harris was “cowardice” with “democracy as its casualty.”
“@realdonaldtrump will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner @jeffbezos (and others),” he claimed. “Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”
“The first step towards fascism is when the free press cowers in fear,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA).
Former Obama official Ben Rhodes posted: “There is no logic that isn’t damning as to why the Washington Post and LA Times feel they can endorse in every local, state and federal election other than a presidential race.”
“It’s not that these endorsements tip the balance in an election; it’s that self-censoring because you are afraid of retribution from an authoritarian tells you everything you need to know about the priorities of management,” he wrote.
He continued, “What’s truly depressing is how much this is a mirror to the rot in the American economy and society today: you end up governed by self-interested autocrats when there is no value higher than personal profit.”
“A lot of the Russian oligarchs who owned media properties in the late 90s helped or enabled Putin’s rise to power thinking it would help them,” he concluded. “Today, Putin controls every major outlet in Russia.”
“}]]
