[Correction: I accidentally included material about the LA Times in the story. Fixed.]
We all know the Washington Post publisher (almost certainly on the orders of its owner, Bezos) killed a planned endorsement of Kamala Harris, explaining in a weasely, mealy-mouthed, totally craven opinion piece that the Post had decided to revert to a policy it hasn’t followed in decades of not endorsing candidates. He didn’t mention that this was a last-minute move, but lots of other people noticed.
The editor-at-large, Robert Kagan, has quit in protest. Washington Post editor at large quits after paper declines to endorse presidential candidate (Fox, yes, Fox). The story added:
The Washington Post Guild also declared it is "deeply concerned" about the decision not to endorse a candidate.
"According to our own reporters and Guild members, an endorsement for Harris was already drafted, and the decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos. We are already seeing cancelations [sic] from once loyal readers," the Guild said.
A source close to Washington Post leadership told Fox News Digital that Bezos was not involved in the decision. [Yeah, right.] A Post spokesperson declined to comment but reiterated it was a "Washington Post decision."
Word — and revolt — is spreading: 'People are furious': Bezos faces a Washington Post revolt after he reportedly blocked the paper from endorsing Harris (Business Insider)
Washington Post editorial staff are in revolt after the paper reported that it wouldn't endorse a presidential candidate for the first time in 40 years and that its owner Jeff Bezos, Amazon's founder, made the decision. . . .
A member of the opinion department, speaking anonymously to protect their job, said the editorial board was in the dark on the decision until Friday.
"People are furious. It's frightful when a billionaire does not have the nerve to stand up to Donald Trump," this person said.
"I've seen a lot of angst; people are upset," another Washington Post insider said.
Washington Post won't endorse presidential candidate, sparking outrage (CBS News)
Washington Post Says It Will Stop Endorsing Presidential Candidates (NYT). The Times reports that it was Bezos’s decision, and added
Marty Baron, the recent editor of The Post who led the paper through a period of editorial and business success, called the decision “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty,” in a post on X. He added that former President Donald J. Trump would see it as an invitation to continue to try to intimidate Mr. Bezos. “Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”
In a statement, leaders of The Washington Post Guild said they were “deeply concerned” by the decision not to endorse “a mere 11 days ahead of an immensely consequential election.”
“The message from our chief executive, Will Lewis — not from the Editorial Board itself — makes us concerned that management interfered with the work of our members in editorial,” the statement said.
Even the Post itself carried the story as a news piece: The Washington Post says it will not endorse a candidate for president. While it is written as a straightforward news item, you can feel the anger beneath the surface:
The Post’s editorial board was informed Friday by Opinion Editor David Shipley in a tense meeting. Multiple members of the board expressed vehement opposition, according to two attendees who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
In addition to Kagan’s resignation, the story reports that Eugene Robinson, Woodward/Bernstein, and others, have issued statements opposing the decision.
WaPo columnists are already speaking out on the Post’s website front page:
Ruth Marcus: For The Post, the wrong choice at the worst possible time
What self-respecting news organization could abandon its entrenched practice of making presidential endorsements in the face of all this?
Karen Tumulty: Refusing to endorse a candidate, The Post wounds itself
Perry Bacon Jr: The Washington Post’s decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake. It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love.
And Ann Telnaes (her cartoon is just a page blacked out by a Sharpie).
Readers:
“I’m returning to my proud tradition of not being subscribed to The Post.”
A “gem of sophistry”
“Disingenuous . . .[an] act of cowardice”
“This decision looks ad hoc and expedient.”
“[A]n abdication of one of the key responsibilities . . . it is clear that [the Post] is subservient to power.”
A “preemptive appeasement of the worst elements of the Republican Party.”
“You have brought ignominy to a once-proud institution.”
Etc. (Not a single letter was published supporting the Post’s decision.)
-------------------— Update Sat 2:15 PM Pacific -------------------—
CNN’s Reliable Sources (Brian Selzer) is reporting that the firestorm has reached mega-proportions:
The Post's newsroom treated Bezos's decision as front-page news today; the story by Manuel Roig-Franzia and Laura Wagner notes high up that "angry readers and sources flooded the email inboxes of numerous staffers with complaints." The story is the #1 most-read article on the Post's website this morning, and it has more than 36,000 comments so far.
I'm reliably told that the number of subscriber cancellations is in the thousands. (The Post isn't commenting.) An editorial writer told me this morning, "I am overwhelmed with the number of heartfelt messages from readers cancelling but expressing personal appreciation for what I do. It breaks my heart." [emphases in original]
Several commentators have pointed out that WaPo is a “toy” for Bezos, that he’s not (or no longer) much interested in it. Others have mentioned his interest in Blue Origins and that he needs Trump in office (and not mad at him) so the gov’t will invest in it. Which leads me to a thought I’ve expressed below: Part of what is going on is a little boys’ spat between Bezos and Musk over who get to have the most toys.
So all those cancelled subscriptions will probably not get Bezos’s attention. He doesn’t need the Post.
