Vice President Kamala’s campaign has just suffered another major blow which may just indicate how poorly she’s actually doing. The Washington Post has a long-standing tradition of endorsing Democratic candidates in presidential elections. Since backing Jimmy Carter in 1976, the paper has consistently supported the Democratic nominee, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden in recent years. However, for the first time since the 1980s, the Post has chosen to break with this pattern.
“The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election,” wrote William Lewis, the publisher and chief executive officer of The Washington Post. “We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.” The post has never endorsed a Republican candidate for president.
The paper’s publisher made the announcement on Friday. The decision to abstain from endorsing a candidate surprised many, as the paper is known for its support of liberal policies and candidates. This year’s choice has left Democrats, particularly Kamala Harris, facing uncharted waters.
“Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds. Most of all, our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent. And that is what we are and will be,” Lewis added.
Historically, the paper’s endorsements have played a significant role in strengthening Democratic campaigns, providing credibility and influence in the race. Without this backing, Harris and her supporters are left to contemplate what the absence of support from such a major media outlet could mean for her chances. This marks the first time since the 1988 election that the Post will refrain from endorsing a candidate—when it chose not to support either Michael Dukakis or George H.W. Bush. The Post clarified that this decision was motivated by a desire to maintain fair and objective reporting in a deeply polarized election cycle.
The Post’s decision is the second by a major newspaper not to endorse a presidential candidate. In a groundbreaking decision, the Los Angeles Times, a publication traditionally known for its consistent support of Democratic candidates, has chosen not to endorse any presidential contender in the 2024 election. The blow is a huge one for Harris, as the Times is, of course, located in her home state of California. It marks the first time since 2004 that the newspaper has withheld its endorsement, breaking with a long-standing tradition. Reports suggest that the owner of the Times influenced this decision, instructing the editorial board to refrain from backing a candidate this cycle.
Earlier in the year, the LA Times released its list of endorsements. “It’s no exaggeration to say this may be the most consequential election in a generation. And we’re not just talking about the presidential race. From the top of the ticket to local ballot measures, California voters this year are grappling with major decisions that will shape their lives and communities for years to come,” the newspaper’s editorial board wrote. “To help voters decide, the Times editorial board offers recommendations based on interviewing candidates, campaign committees and policy experts, examining facts and claims and doing research to inform our endorsements.” Endorsements ranged from Propositions, Council Members to Senators. However, no presidential endorsement was included.
An LA Times spokesperson conveyed to Semafor, “We do not comment on internal discussions or decisions about editorials or endorsements.” However, insiders disclosed that Terry Tang, the executive editor, informed the editorial board staff earlier this month that the newspaper would not endorse any candidate in the presidential election. This directive reportedly came from Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the owner of the paper and a prominent figure in the healthcare industry. While the LA Times did not provide a specific reason for this decision, a note on their online endorsement page clarifies, “the editorial board endorses selectively, choosing the most consequential races in which to make recommendations.”
However, that’s not entirely accurate. Until now, the Los Angeles Times, one of the most influential newspapers in the United States, has consistently supported Democratic candidates in its presidential endorsements over past elections. Its endorsements of Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012 further demonstrated the newspaper’s alignment with progressive political figures. In 2016, the Times endorsed Hillary Clinton, emphasizing her extensive experience in government, her advocacy for an inclusive America, and her potential to become the first female president.
The editors of both papers have since quit in disgust and anger at the decision not to back Harris.
Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.