The editorial was already prepared. The opinion section of Washington Post He planned to ask to vote for Kamala Harris against Donald Trump in the presidential elections on November 5. However, the owner of the newspaper, billionaire Jeff Bezos, the second richest man in the world, has decided that the newspaper should stop expressly supporting any of the options, as it has been doing for half a century. The newspaper’s managers present it as a return to the roots. Its former director, Martin Baron, does not see it that way: “This is cowardice, with democracy as a victim. Donald Trump will see this as an invitation to further intimidate his owner, Jeff Bezos (and others). “Disturbing cowardice in an institution famous for its bravery,” has written. The decision, which follows a similar one adopted by the owner of Los Angeles Times, It has caused discomfort in the editorial staff, the protest of almost all the columnists, the loss of subscribers as renowned as Stephen King and the criticism of classics of the newspaper such as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
The CEO of the publishing company, William Lewis, has explained the decision in an article published in the media itself. “The Washington Post will not support any presidential candidate in these elections. Nor in any future presidential election. We return to our origins of not supporting presidential candidates,” his column begins.
Lewis cites articles in which the editorial board explained in 1960 that the newspaper’s tradition was not to support any of the candidates, a tradition that was exceptionally broken in 1952, when the newspaper called for the vote for Dwight Eisenhower. In 1976, however, he began the new tradition of explicitly stating, on that occasion in favor of Jimmy Carter. Since then, the newspaper has supported one candidate or another in each presidential election, but Lewis believes that the correct decision was not to get involved.
“We recognize that this will be interpreted in various ways, as tacit support for one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That’s inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values that the post has always stood for and what we expect from a leader: character and courage in the service of the American ethic, reverence for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects. “We also see it as a statement of support for our readers’ ability to decide for themselves this most important of American decisions: who to vote for as the next president,” Lewis argues.
“Our work in Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom unbiased news for all Americans, and thought-provoking insights from our opinion team that help our readers form their own opinions. Above all, our job as a newspaper in the capital of the most important country in the world is to be independent,” concludes the CEO, whose appointment has been accompanied by controversy.
Lewis, a veteran of London’s conservative newspapers, tried to appoint Robert Winnett, deputy editor of the paper, as editor of the paper. The Daily Telegraph, medium in which both agreed. However, an investigation of one’s own Washington Post about his adventures caused the signing to derail.
In addition to Lewis’s opinion column, The newspaper itself has published information about its decision. In it, citing anonymous sources, he assures that those in charge of the editorial page had already written a draft supporting Harris, but it had not yet been published. It also says that the decision to stop publishing support for presidential candidates was made by the owner of the post, the founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, according to said information.
Internal indignation
According to that source, the decision has outraged many members of the newspaper’s opinion section, which works independently of the news editorial team. Nine of the newspaper’s columnists co-signed a highly critical opinion piece that was later signed by seven more: “The decision of Washington Post Not giving your support to the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake. It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial beliefs of the newspaper we love, and for which we have worked for a total of 228 years. This is a moment for the institution to make clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump represents to them – the precise points that ThePost did by endorsing Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020―. There is no contradiction between the important role of ThePost as an independent newspaper and its practice of giving its political support, both as a matter of guidance to readers and as a statement of fundamental beliefs. This has never been more true than in the current campaign. An independent newspaper could one day give up supporting the presidential elections. But this is not the time when a candidate defends positions that directly threaten freedom of the press and the values of the Constitution,” write the heavyweights of the opinion section in the newspaper itself, which for the second time in a few months becomes highlighted their own internal decisions, in an exercise unthinkable in other latitudes.
Unrest has also spread in the news editorial staff. The newspaper’s union has published a harsh statement in which it shows its deep concern in this regard. “The role of an editorial board is precisely this: to share opinions on news that affects our society and culture and to support candidates to help guide readers. The message from our CEO, Will Lewis—not from the editorial board itself—leads us to believe that management interfered in the work of our editorial board members. According to our own reporters and Guild members, support for Harris had already been drafted, and the decision not to publish it was made by the owner of ThePost, Jeff Bezos. We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers. “This decision undermines the work of our members at a time when we should be building the trust of our readers, not losing it,” says.
Among those casualties is that of the writer Stephen King: “After five years, I have canceled my subscription to the Washington Post”, has tweeted.
“Exhibit of cowardice”
Two of the newspaper’s classics, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who uncovered the watergate case and brought down Richard Nixon, they have also raised their voices: “We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page, but this decision 11 days before the 2024 presidential elections ignores the overwhelming informative evidence of the same Washington Post about the threat that Donald Trump poses to democracy. Under the ownership of Jeff Bezos, The Washington Post has used its abundant resources to rigorously investigate the danger and damage that a second Trump presidency could cause to the future of American democracy and that makes this decision even more surprising and disappointing, especially at this point in the electoral process. In a meme circulating on social media, Robert Redford is seen playing the role of Woodward in the film about the Watergate case, All the president’s men, on the phone, with the legend: “I want to cancel my subscription.”
“There is no way to look at this other than as an appalling display of cowardice and a dereliction of public duty,” has written in Guardian Margaret Sullivan, who was a media columnist in the post and reader advocate The New York Times. “All of this may seem like non-partisan neutrality, or have that intention, but it is far from it. First of all, it is a shameful slap in the face to the editorial staff of both newspapers (the post and Los Angeles Times), who has done important work exposing the dangers of Trump for many years,” he argues. “It is also a strong statement of preference. Newspaper leaders have made it clear that they either love Trump (who is, after all, a boon to vast personal fortunes) or that they do not want to risk the former president’s wrath and retaliation if he wins. If the latter has been a factor, it is based on a short-sighted judgment, since Trump has been a danger to press rights and would only become emboldened in a second term,” he adds.
It is the second major American newspaper to make a similar decision in a matter of days. Earlier this week, Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner of Los Angeles Times, blocked his editorial board’s plan to ask for the vote for Harris. The decision led to the resignation of the newspaper’s editorial manager and two other members of the editorial board.
“As the owner, I am on the editorial board and I shared with our editors the idea that maybe this year we could dedicate a column, a page, two pages, if we want, to all the pros and all the cons and let the readers decide ”Soon-Shiong declared in an interview given on Thursday to Spectrum News collected by Associated Press. The magnate said he feared that supporting a candidate would contribute to the division of the country.
