Image 01 Image 03

Washington Post Editorial Board Not Making Presidential Endorsement

Washington Post Editorial Board Not Making Presidential Endorsement

The paper also won’t make endorsements “in any future presidential election.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEikmxEdI-w

The Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis announced the paper would not make a presidential endorsement this year or “in any future presidential election.”

Lewis said WaPo is returning to its roots “of not endorsing presidential candidates.”

Lewis wrote, which will likely make you laugh (emphasis mine):

We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects. We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president.

Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom non-partisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds.

Most of all, our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent.

And that is what we are and will be.

I laughed. Non-partisan. Independent. Okay, whatever, bro.

WaPo made an exception in 1952 when the editorial board endorsed General Eisenhower.

In 1960, the board wrote, “But hindsight also has convinced us that it might have been wiser for an independent newspaper in the Nation’s Capital to have avoided formal endorsement.”

Lewis thinks the board made two points in 1960 that would “resonate” in today’s environment:

“The election of 1960 is certainly as important as any held in this century. This newspaper is in no sense noncommittal about the challenges that face the country. As our readers will be aware, we have attempted to make clear in editorials our conviction that most of the time one of the two candidates has shown a deeper understanding of the issues and a larger capacity for leadership.”

However, it concluded:

“We nevertheless adhere to our tradition of non-endorsement in this presidential election. We have said and will continue to say, as reasonably and candidly as we know how, what we believe about the emerging issues of the campaign. We have sought to arrive at our opinions as fairly as possible, with the guidance of our own principles of independence but free of commitment to any party or candidate.”

WaPo started endorsing presidents in 1976 when it supported Jimmy Carter.

The paper refused to take a side in 1988 between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis.

NPR described the decision at the meeting as “tense.” Editorial page editor David Shipley reportedly told the board that “he ‘owns’ this decision.”

The Los Angeles Times made news the other day when owner Patrick Soon-Shiong told the board they couldn’t make an endorsement.

Editorial editor Mariel Garza resigned from her position yesterday over the decision.

Jeff Bezos owns WaPo.

He hired Lewis in 2024 to replace Fred Ryan.

Bezos faced a backlash within the paper over Lewis “in connection with an alleged hacking scandal during his time working for conservative tabloids in Great Britain.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

destroycommunism | October 25, 2024 at 12:35 pm

the fear the trump win

they hopefully fear the peoples rational resentment of the wapo ho’s

deep throat that!

No public, formal endorsement. Tacit? Yes.

I suppose it would be too much to hope for that the entire editorial staff resign in protest…

Trump should send the staff at WaPo lunch…Big Macs, fries and shakes.
Remember the outrage when the 2017 Clemson Tiger championship football team went to the WH and eagerly devoured the Big Macs president Trump fed them?
It was a brilliant move that flew over many heads.

“The paper also won’t make endorsements “in any future presidential election.”
Remember the recent incident where the outgoing governors of the Disney District tried to extend their legal fiefdom to the expiration date of the last living Windsor monarch?
This pledge is like the opposite of that.

    Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | October 27, 2024 at 4:08 am

    Not the last monarch. The clause was to have expired 21 years after all currently living descendants of Charles III had died.

    This is a fairly standard type of clause in contracts, to avoid the rule against perpetuities. It doesn’t have to be the royal family; such clauses have been known to use the Kennedy family, or other well-known and documented families. The point is to have a large number of people, at least some of whom are likely to live for a very long time, and whose current alive-or-dead status can easily be checked at any time. The rule against perpetuities doesn’t allow the use of someone who hasn’t yet been born.

I think my favorite part is that Jennifer Rubin (a WashingtonPost employee who likes to pretend she’s conservative to give her left-wing views more credibility) was criticizing the LA Times staff when only the editorial page editor resigned over the LAT’s decision not to endorse anyone in the presidential race. I’ll look forward to Rubin putting her money where her mouth is and resigning. Win-win for everyone! By the way, Garza–formerly of the LA Times–seems to not understand the basics of the employer-employee relationship. Perhaps these brain surgeons should start their own newspaper–I’m sure they’d be as successful as David Hogg was when he was going to start a pillow company and teach Mike Lindel a thing or two about capitalism.

So this is one of the things that is giving me heart about the up coming election that was missing in 2020 and 2022.

The rats are fleeing the sinking boat and that just doesn’t happen when they feel like their candidate is going to win, like they did in 2020.

I hope to god Trump wins and Democrats are absolutely smashed. Is it too much to hope for the popular vote going Trumps way? That would just be the icing on the cake.

However Trump does unfortunately have to win outside the margin of fraud. His win has to be so big that any Democrat attempts to manufacture ballots on the fly will just be to fucking obvious and inexplicable to explain!

Trump has to win so yuuuuugely that the Democrats would have to be incredibly obvious to try to steal the vote, thus making it much easier to ferret them out!

We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another…

Of course WaPo is condemning a candidate. If they had wanted to avoid the appearance of endorsing one candidate or condemning the other, they would have waited until after the election before setting the policy for the next, when nobody knows who the candidates will be.

    Dolce Far Niente in reply to DaveGinOly. | October 25, 2024 at 6:48 pm

    “including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another…”

    Isn’t this PRECISELY what an overt endorsement is? But they’re worried how a non-endorsement will b understood? SMH. They mean they’re terrified someone will think they don’t hate Donald Trump enough.

    The editorial board were given clear instructions about how the owner wanted both candidates treated; i.e. equally and fairly, and the unrepentantly biased wokesters refused.

    Boo frickin’ hoo.

Gee, I guess we’ll never know which candidate WaPo supports.