Newspapers pull candidate endorsements
Should national newspapers endorse presidential candidates? Viewpoints from multiple sides.
Enjoying Framechange? Forward to a friend to help spread the word!
New to Framechange? Sign up for free to see multiple sides in your inbox.
Learn more about our mission to reduce polarization and how we represent different viewpoints here.
Quick announcements
One change to our format to point out – the “Snippets” section can now be found at the bottom of the edition, under the “Be heard” section. This is to dive right into the main topic and in-line with some of your recent feedback.
With Election Day on Tuesday, we focus this week on the debate around recent decisions by several national newspapers to refrain from endorsing presidential candidates.
And if you’re curious, check out some of the latest election polls going into the weekend here: RealClear Polling, FiveThirtyEight.
Enjoy and happy voting!
Eric
What’s happening
This week, the parent company of USA Today and 200+ local newspapers announced the outlets would not endorse a presidential candidate in the 2024 election. USA Today joins the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post as the latest national papers to announce they would not endorse candidates.
LA Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, a biotech entrepreneur, reportedly blocked its editorial board from publishing an endorsement of Kamala Harris last week. Several days later, the Washington Post – which was also planning a Harris endorsement – announced it would refrain from endorsing a presidential candidate in this and future elections through an op-ed published by its CEO and publisher, Will Lewis.
A newspaper’s newsroom, which reports on straight news, is technically independent from its editorial board and editorial contributors, which publish opinion pieces. All 3 outlets have left-leaning editorial boards. The LA Times had endorsed a candidate in each presidential election since 2008, the Washington Post had endorsed one in almost every election since 1976, and USA Today made its first official endorsement in 2020.
Fallout: Several editorial board members, editors, and columnists resigned from the LA Times and Washington Post in the wake of their papers’ decisions, citing reasons including the importance of informing readers on election positions and of taking a specific stance against Donald Trump. The Washington Post has reportedly seen 200,000+ subscription cancellations since its decision.
Defense of the decisions: Soon-Shiong’s daughter, Nika Soon-Shiong, said that she influenced the LA Times decision and it was made in part because of Harris’s support for Israel. Her father refuted her claims, saying the call was made in light of deepening national divides and not meant to favor any one candidate. Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post who reportedly made its decision, published an essay saying it was in the interest of reestablishing the public’s trust in the Washington Post’s independence and credibility.
Growing trend: The ending of presidential endorsements is a continuation of a growing trend among major newspapers. In 2022, Alden Capital – which owns over 200 outlets including Chicago Tribune and New York Daily News – announced its properties would no longer endorse presidential candidates while the Minnesota Star Tribune said this year it would no longer endorse candidates in general elections.
Debate over the merits of newspaper presidential endorsements has been fierce over the past week, amplified by the proximity of Election Day on Tuesday. This week, we bring you the viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.
Notable viewpoints
More opposed to ending endorsements:
The recent pulling of endorsements was motivated more by external business interests than political neutrality.
The recent decisions by newspaper owners to prevent their papers from making presidential candidate endorsements – which would have favored Kamala Harris over Donald Trump – is more about protecting their business interests from a potential Trump retaliation than about the pursuit of journalistic neutrality.
Jeff Bezos lost a $10B cloud-computing contract for Amazon in 2019 after Trump reportedly instructed Defense Secretary James Mattis to “screw Amazon.” This context suggests Bezos’ decision to stop candidate endorsements is out of fear of Trump’s influence.
Newspapers should not be owned by wealthy individuals with outsized business interests external to the paper because it can drive conflicts of interest apparent in the cases of the LA Times and Washington Post.
If a media outlet’s owner can influence who the outlet endorses for president, readers will lose trust that the owner’s decisions aren’t involved in every political candidate endorsement, including those in local elections where voters still rely on newspapers in making voting decisions.
Political candidate endorsements play a valuable role for newspapers and their readers.
Editorial board endorsements are thoughtfully researched pieces that provide a structured argument for one candidate or another based on their history and facts.
While candidate endorsements don’t significantly influence modern presidential elections, they play a significant role in reflecting the values of media organizations.
Pulling Harris endorsements at the last minute serves as an endorsement for Trump.
Pulling endorsements for Harris this close to the election is effectively an endorsement of Trump given the optics of left-leaning outlets not supporting the Democratic candidate.
“[Not endorsing Harris] makes us look craven and hypocritical, maybe even a bit sexist and racist. How could we spend eight years railing against Trump and the danger his leadership poses to the country and then fail to endorse the perfectly decent Democrat challenger — who we previously endorsed for the US Senate?” (Mariel Gaza, former LA Times editorials editor, in her resignation letter to LA Times.)
More supportive of ending endorsements:
Ending presidential endorsements is a necessary step toward reestablishing trust in newspaper neutrality and independence.
Ending the practice of endorsing political candidates is a necessary step toward reinstilling trust in journalism’s objectivity, which is at an all-time low. A 2024 Gallup poll found that only 31% of Americans have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the media to report news “fully, accurately and fairly,” while 69% have no trust or “not very much” trust.
Refraining from endorsing candidates is valuable because many Americans can’t distinguish between a newspaper’s news coverage and editorial board, and a public stance on such a prominent topic can have an outsized impact on journalistic trust.
Newspaper presidential endorsements are outdated relics that no longer influence an election and only “create a perception of bias” and non-independence. (Summarized from Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, in his Washington Post essay.)
Restoring the public’s trust in the credibility of major newspapers – where the world’s most talented journalists work and reporting is verified – is critical to preventing the public from relying on social media, podcasts, and other unverified news sources for inaccurate information. (Summarized from Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, in his Washington Post essay.)
Ending presidential endorsements is a necessary shift away from “activist” journalism.
It is not the media’s role to tell people what to think – Americans are capable of making their own decisions on who to vote for in presidential elections.
Declining to endorse a presidential candidate is a small but necessary step by the Washington Post toward ridding itself from crude, “activist politics” that have not helped its bottom line in recent years and have steadily contributed to the decline of the quality of its journalism.
Recent decisions to refrain from endorsing presidential candidates were not driven by external business interests.
The Washington Post should have announced its ending of presidential endorsements sooner in the election cycle rather than so close to the election, but its timing was a result of inadequate planning and not by personal business interests or consultation with any candidate. (Summarized from Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, in his Washington Post essay.)
“You can see my wealth and business interests as a bulwark against intimidation, or you can see them as a web of conflicting interests. Only my own principles can tip the balance from one to the other. I assure you that my views here are, in fact, principled, and I believe my track record as owner of The Post since 2013 backs this up.” (Jeff Bezos, Washington Post owner, in his Washington Post essay.)
Other viewpoints:
Canceling subscriptions to the newspapers that have recently declined to endorse a presidential candidate, as many subscribers have done, only further threatens the availability of high-quality journalism by removing the funding source for that journalism and its hard-working journalists. (Summarized from statement made by LA Times union leadership.)
“Bezos surely did more at the margins to help Harris by spiking the [endorsement] – by outraging her supporters – than if it had been published on Sunday.” (John Harris, Politico.)
The decision by left-leaning outlets to end presidential endorsements is somewhat arbitrary given their editorial boards have already made it clear they support Harris to this point.
Even if Bezos’ motivation in stopping the Washington Post from endorsing political candidates was to protect his external business interests, the move is unlikely to deter Trump in the future given the tense history between Trump and Bezos.
Be heard
We want to hear from you! Comment below with your perspective on newspaper presidential endorsements and we may feature it in our socials or future newsletters. Below are topic ideas to consider:
Do you think national newspaper editorial boards should endorse presidential candidates? Why or why not?
What are some arguments or supporting points you appreciate about a viewpoint you disagree with?
Snippets
Police are searching for a man believed to be behind three separate ballot box fires in Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington this month. The fires destroyed hundreds of ballots in one box and incendiary devices placed inside the boxes carried the messages “Free Gaza” and “Free Palestine.”
US jobs growth slowed in October, with a seasonally-adjusted 12,000 jobs added to the economy against an expected 100,000, a result assumed to be driven by hurricanes and the Boeing strike. Unemployment remained steady at 4.1%.
At least 158 people have been killed by flash-flooding in Spain’s Valencia, Castilla-La Mancha, and Andalusia regions. Valencia saw more than a year’s worth of average rainfall in one night.
Roughly 8,000 North Korean soldiers in Russia near the Kursk border region are expected to enter the fighting with Ukraine in the “coming days,” according to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. An estimated 10,000 North Korean troops have been training in Russia.
The Supreme Court denied RFK Jr’s appeal to be removed from ballots in Michigan and Wisconsin, the remaining 2 states where he remained on ballots after suspending his presidential candidacy. Supporting Trump, RFK Jr had hoped to limit the number of voters that might vote for him instead of Trump.
Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.
Music on the bottom
Enjoy a new pop song this week, “(Isn’t It) Obvious,” by Alessia Cara. The outro guitar solo is played by a certain “Your Body is a Wonderland” singer.
Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.