Will Lewis, publisher and chief executive of The Washington Post, writing in the paper's Opinion section:
"The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates."
Jeff Bezos, owner of The Post, writing in an OpEd:
"Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. [...] What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one."
To be honest, I don't disagree with any of that on its face. While I think that it's perfectly natural for an opinion section and an editorial staff to have a consistent point of view, it's reasonable for a publication to stop short of endorsing a political candidate as a matter of policy. I don't think that policy prevents a perception of bias—The Washington Post will still be seen as a liberal paper regardless of its lack of an endorsement for Kamala Harris—but I understand the sentiment.
That said, I don't understand the timing. Why make this decision mere days before Election Day? Why wait until the editorial staff had already decided to endorse Harris, and had written the endorsement? Bezos claims it's not for any other reason but principle, but the the principled way to enact this policy would have been to make the policy well in advance of the election—or after it—when there is no controversy to be had. Instead, Bezos (through Lewis) decreed the "returning to our roots" just 11 days prior to one of the most consequential elections in modern US history.
Any paper that has "democracy dies in darkness" in its masthead owes it to its staff and readers to make the sum truth of its reporting clear: Trump is not fit for office.
NPRhas reported that "more than 200,000 people had canceled their digital subscriptions by midday Monday", a stunning figure for a paper that had celebrated a year-to-date gain of 4,000 subscribers earlier this year.
I can say that I am one of those cancelations. I'm choosing instead to renew my subscription to The Atlantic, which, as I posted earlier endorsed Harris earlier this month, despite a longstanding policy that it doesn't make political endorsements.
The Atlantic did the exact opposite of what The Washington Post did: They took an extraordinary stand, going against their own policy and precedent, recognizing this moment as the threat to the fabric of our nation that it is, and endorsed the only candidate that makes sense, given their own reporting. That's where I want my money to go.
(While we're at it, let's celebrate the courage of Alexandra Petri, a humor columnist for The Post, who posted her own endorsement of Harris, complete with its own stinging commentary on the whole brouhaha.)
The money won't hurt Bezos, of course. But hopefully the message is loud and clear: this was a mistake. Bezos should reverse course, allow his editorial staff to publish their endorsement, and offer a no-penalty return for those who resigned in protest (in a field where resigning might mean real hardship, and possibly the end of a career). After the election is over, a new "no endorsement" policy can be instated, when it won't do the kind of damage it does now.
I hope Bezos can be big enough to admit he was wrong, and make this right.