In a bold departure from tradition, The Washington Post announced it would not endorse a candidate for the 2024 presidential election—a decision that has ignited backlash from readers, former staff, and even the famed Watergate reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who built their careers exposing government corruption.
Released Friday, The Post‘s announcement marks the first time since 1988 that the influential publication has withheld its endorsement, prompting the duo to issue a joint statement via CNN, condemning the choice as both “surprising and disappointing.” “We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page,” they said. “But this decision 11 days out from the 2024 presidential election ignores The Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy.”
The statement goes further to highlight the heavy investigative work the paper has done under the ownership of Jeff Bezos, particularly on Trump’s impact on democratic norms. “That makes this decision even more surprising,” Woodward and Bernstein emphasized. Known for their Watergate coverage that brought down Nixon, the two journalists argue that The Post is ignoring its legacy of fearless reporting by stepping away from its role in shaping the public debate on democracy’s future.
Internal Tension and a Resigned Columnist
The fallout from The Post’s announcement has been swift, with high-profile resignations and visible discontent among staff. Columnist Robert Kagan, a conservative critic of Trump, stepped down from the editorial board in protest, while the Washington Post Guild issued a statement expressing deep concerns. “We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers. This decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it,” the Guild asserted.
Rumors swirled that the paper’s editorial team had prepared an endorsement for Democrat Kamala Harris, allegedly approved by page editor David Shipley, but it was blocked at the last minute by Bezos himself. According to NPR’s David Folkenflik, the decision has “uniformly outraged” Post staff, some of whom voiced concerns that the paper is retreating from its mission of advocating for transparency and democratic values. Former executive editor Martin Baron called the choice “cowardice,” warning that “Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners).”
The announcement echoes recent developments at the Los Angeles Times, where billionaire owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong similarly intervened to prevent an endorsement, sparking the resignation of editorial editor Mariel Garza. In her resignation statement to the Columbia Journalism Review, Garza emphasized her stance on the issue: “I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent. In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up.”
The Divide Among Influential Figures
The decision by The Post and LA Times to remain silent comes at a critical moment, and prominent voices are speaking out. Bernie Sanders, a vocal advocate for government transparency, called out Bezos on X (formerly Twitter), denouncing the move as an act of “oligarchy.” “Jeff Bezos, the 2nd wealthiest person in the world and the owner of The Washington Post, overrides his editorial board… Clearly, he is afraid of antagonizing Trump and losing Amazon’s federal contracts,” Sanders claimed.
The Post’s current CEO, Will Lewis, who assumed the position amid this contentious election, defended the decision in an op-ed as a commitment to “character and courage.” “We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for,” he wrote, highlighting the paper’s aim to provide independent space for readers without explicitly directing their votes.
Readers React, Cancelling Subscriptions and Voicing Frustration
The reaction among readers has been swift and unfavorable. Many long-time subscribers took to social media to pledge cancellations, with others echoing the outrage of Woodward and Bernstein. “This is an October Surprise we weren’t expecting,” commented senior political correspondent Ashley Parker, summing up the shock many feel as the election nears.
For The Post, a paper steeped in its reputation for courageous journalism, the decision not to endorse a candidate has stirred debates over journalistic ethics and obligations in times of political unrest. With just over a week until the election, the decision signals a major shift in how leading newspapers engage with their readership in times of national decision.
Does The Washington Post’s silence ultimately serve democracy, or could this neutrality backfire, weakening the paper’s authority just when readers look to it most?
