Mere weeks before the 2024 election, several major newspapers, including The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, have announced that they will not be endorsing a presidential candidate this cycle. This flies in the face of tradition for both of these widely read publications and was met with consternation and resignations from their own organizations. Both decisions came directly from the billionaire owners of the respective papers after endorsements for Vice President Kamala Harris had been drafted by their editorial boards. Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong claimed that this choice was made because he was afraid to “add to the division.” Jeff Bezos, owner of the Post, stated in an op-ed that his “principled decision” was intended to restore public trust in the news media.
If anything, these publications have lost public trust. On the one hand, a presidential endorsement from either would likely do little to swing the needle. Both fall solidly in the “skews left” section of the media bias chart — few would assume that either would endorse former President Donald Trump over Harris anyway. In fact, many major newspapers have stopped endorsing presidential candidates over the past 20 years. However, the last-minute nature of these decisions has stood out, especially considering the assault on democratic norms by one of the candidates. Robert Greene, an author and former Times editorialist who quit over the non-endorsement decision, published a piece in The Atlantic calling the non-endorsements of Harris in the eleventh hour from two publications that have long been reporting on Trump’s unfitness “plain cowardice.”
Endorsements are more than tradition; they represent informed opinions based on years of reporting from outlets that many Americans do trust, particularly at a time when misinformation runs rampant on social media. In only the fifth presidential endorsement of its 167-year run, The Atlantic explained that they are endorsing Harris as she “believes in the freedom, equality, and dignity of all Americans” and “believes in democracy,” in contrast to her opponent. To me, these qualities represent the lowest bar necessary to run our nation.
To pretend that remaining neutral in this election is akin to remaining neutral in any other before this and that Jan. 6, as well as Trump’s open admission of further plans to undermine and subvert our democracy, are not uniquely disqualifying is unbecoming of such major publications. With our democracy at stake, neutrality is complicity. The Post’s slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” was used by Bezos in 2016, who added that “certain institutions have a very important role in making sure that there is light.” This week, he prevented his own newsroom from shining that light on a presidential candidate who is as anti-democratic as we’ve had.
Soon-Shiong and Bezos are most certainly trying to hedge their bets with a candidate they believe will use his office improperly to seek retribution on those who have wronged him, as Trump himself has indicated he will do. They are bending to his will before he’s even won the election — giving Trump an excuse to claim that these generally left-leaning publications specifically don’t trust Harris.
While the high-profile non-endorsement decisions this week are troubling, they are part of a trend towards fewer endorsements in local and state elections. Earlier this year, The New York Times ended endorsements in local elections, drawing ire from local subscribers. Though this made fewer headlines, I believe that this is an even graver mistake than the one made by the LA Times and the Post. When newspapers stop running local endorsements, readers lose an informative tool that can help them decide on issues or candidates they know little about and may have little time to do in-depth research on. If robust and reliable newspapers continue to end endorsements, I fear that many more Americans will be forced to turn to unreliable sources such as social media to fill the void, or they may not even bother voting in smaller races, which can be more consequential to their lives than the ones at the top of the ticket.
I relied heavily on reporting and endorsements — which are not only opinions but carefully constructed arguments for or against a candidate or ballot measure based on rigorous reporting — from the LA Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and The Mercury News of San Jose when I voted last week. These are publications I have been reading for years and trust. I have since lost some trust in the LA Times knowing that their endorsements are not based only on factual reporting and the analysis of a thoughtful editorial board but are also beholden to the whims of their billionaire owner.
I thank the Daily for their guide to the Massachusetts ballot questions and encourage their newsroom to continue not just reporting, but offering informative resources to their host communities. As readers, we should make it clear to publications that we trust that we value their guidance. Our democracy relies on good journalism to illuminate what we can’t see, so we can vote for the best possible future for our families and communities.
Reya Kumar (LA'24) is a former executive opinion editor of the Tufts Daily.
