The Washington Post’s bombshell resolution to skip endorsing a candidate on this yr’s presidential race, making it the second greatest newspaper to do that after the LA Times has set off a firestorm amongst readers, political insiders, and journalists alike.
After reviews surfaced that proprietor Jeff Bezos blocked the endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris, readers took to social media, inboxes, and boards to slam the transfer, labeling it all the pieces from “cowardly” to “a betrayal of journalistic integrity.”
The resolution confronted backlash after columnist Robert Kagan resigned, and 11 opinion writers collectively printed a bit condemning the choice.
WaPo to not make presidential endorsement
“The Washington Post won’t be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate on this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” William Lewis chief govt officer of WaPo mentioned in an opinion piece printed on October 25.
William Lewis factors out that the Washington Post’s selection to not again a candidate may very well be seen in numerous methods, like a delicate thumbs up or a call to not choose a aspect. He highlights that this transfer matches the paper’s major rules of being trustworthy, courageous, and valuing the legislation.
Also learn: US information media endorsements for 2024 presidential race: New York Post backs Trump, NYT calls Harris ‘the one selection’
Lewis talks in regards to the Post’s previous in giving out endorsements, beginning with Jimmy Carter in 1976, and notes that this resolution has stirred up a variety of disagreement among the many editorial workforce, exhibiting how there is a clear divide between reporting the information and sharing private views. It concluded with, “Our job at The Washington Post is to offer via the newsroom nonpartisan information for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion workforce to assist our readers make up their very own minds.
Readers react to WaPo’s resolution to not endorse both Trump or Harris
With simply over every week till the 2024 U.S. presidential showdown between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, main newspapers and media shops have introduced their endorsements. Out of the 80 endorsements backing the Democratic nominee, notable publications embody the Winston-Salem Chronicle, New York Times, Boston Globe, The New Yorker, Denver Post, Las Vegas Sun, Los Angeles Sentinel, and Seattle Times. On the opposite hand, Trump has acquired endorsements from the New York Post, The Washington Times, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Readers of the Washington Post, one of many most-read newspapers in America have been enraged, disillusioned, and annoyed with the current resolution of the media monk to sideline from the endorsement.
“Throughout this election cycle, The Post has labored onerous to level out the variations between the candidates, which I admire,” shared Megan Frampton, a reader from New York. “But refusing to endorse anybody at such a important juncture appears like sidestepping accountability.” “And if you’re going to stand behind that act of cowardice, please be courageous sufficient to be completely and unrelentingly truthful in your protection in the previous few days earlier than we head to the polls,” the reader added in accordance with Post’s opinion column.
“If The Post was going make to the choice to not endorse in presidential elections as a matter of precept, that selection ought to have been made a number of months in the past. This resolution seems to be advert hoc and expedient,” Rita Whalen from Silver Spring mentioned. The reader continued crticisng Trump of their remark and mentioned, “Donald Trump is morally, intellectually, mentally and emotionally unfit to function president.”
Also learn: Barron Trump the ‘mastermind’ behind Trump’s secret weapon to…;’Everything he touches turns gold’
With The Post now becoming a member of different papers just like the Los Angeles Times in steering away from endorsements, readers are left questioning in regards to the evolving goal of conventional editorial boards. “If The Post isn’t going to endorse presidential candidates — arguably probably the most important perform of an editorial board — what goal does it actually serve?” requested Sash Goswami from Maryland.
Many longtime readers anticipated The Post, with its storied historical past and editorial clout, to take a definitive stance, particularly given the polarized nature of this election. But as a substitute, The Post selected neutrality, a transfer some readers have referred to as “cowardly” and “an abdication of accountability.”