‘October Surprise’: WaPo Newsroom, Leftists Erupt Over Decision Not To Endorse Kamala
“Today has been an absolute stab in the back. What an insult to those of us who have literally put our careers and lives on the line, to call out threats to human rights and democracy.”
As Legal Insurrection reported, The Washington Post announced Friday that they would not be making an endorsement in this year’s presidential election nor future presidential elections, capping off a disastrous week for the mainstream media that included a similar announcement from the Los Angeles Times.
“Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds,” the paper’s CEO/publisher, William Lewis, laughably proclaimed.
As was the case with the Times, the newsroom and opinion sides at the WaPo erupted in outrage, suggesting that the paper was abandoning its alleged responsibility to readers and that the decision was a “stab in the back”:
Opinion staff at WaPo are furious about the paper's endorsement decision. Several are contemplating what action to take, ranging from resigning, quitting the board, or a statement. "If you don't have the balls to own a newspaper, don't," one Post opinion employee tells me.
— Max Tani (@maxwelltani) October 25, 2024
UPDATE: Robert Kagan confirms to NPR that he has resigned from WaPost editorial board after disclosure it would not make an announcement.
Kagan has been a persistent conservative critic of Trump, tying him to an autocratic tradition.
Uniformly outraged response from staff.
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) October 25, 2024
A statement from Post Guild leadership on the Washington Post's decision to not endorse a presidential candidate pic.twitter.com/fYU7hkr79K
— Washington Post Guild (@PostGuild) October 25, 2024
Today has been an absolute stab in the back.
What an insult to those of us who have literally put our careers and lives on the line, to call out threats to human rights and democracy.
— Karen Attiah (@KarenAttiah) October 25, 2024
Welp, that's certainly a new type of October Surprise.
— Ashley Parker (@AshleyRParker) October 25, 2024
We won a Pulitzer for public service for our coverage of the Jan. 6 insurrection https://t.co/dmCIm8bmKc
— Brianna Sacks (@bri_sacks) October 25, 2024
From Bob Woodward (who is an associate editor at the paper) and Carl Bernstein:
“We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page, 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. Under Jeff Bezos’s ownership, the Washington Post’s news operation has used its abundant resources to rigorously investigate the danger and damage a second Trump presidency could cause to the future of American democracy and that makes this decision even more surprising and disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process.”
New statement from Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein: "We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page, 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…
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) October 26, 2024
The Washington Post just published this cartoon by Ann Teinaes in the opinion section. pic.twitter.com/gKP7QXSukC
— Jon Cryer (@MrJonCryer) October 25, 2024
Prominent lefties and NeverTrumper types also had their undies in a bunch:
So much for “Democracy Dies in Darkness”. This is the most hypocritical, chicken shit move from a publication that is supposed to hold people in power to account. https://t.co/xnQMuR4kIJ
— Susan Rice (@AmbassadorRice) October 25, 2024
It's not that these endorsements tip the balance in an election; it's that self-censoring because you are afraid of retribution from an authoritarian tells you everything you need to know about the priorities of management.
— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) October 25, 2024
And Washington Post leadership doesn't have the courage to endorse Kamala Harris. What a bunch of fucking cowards.
Don't ever lecture us about fighting for democracy again. https://t.co/qoRct49gMK
— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) October 25, 2024
Inject it into my veins 🤤 pic.twitter.com/xumASzjU4k
— Chadwick Moore (@Chadwick_Moore) October 25, 2024
There was also a lot of predictable virtue signaling on the Twitter/X machine with people posting screengrabs of their subscription cancellations:
Bye ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/8dGrn3haVO
— Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads/Insta)🌻 (@AWeissmann_) October 25, 2024
Some suggested that if the critics were really serious about it then they’d cancel their Amazon Prime memberships, too:
If they’re really mad, they should cancel their prime subscriptions though https://t.co/Uhv6uBVpcb
— Andy Kaczynski (@KFILE) October 25, 2024
Cancel your Amazon Prime memberships so we know you’re serious, defenders of democracy!
— Steve Krakauer (@SteveKrak) October 25, 2024
C’mon Steve! Don’t be a wuss—hit Bezos where it hurts. Pull all your books off Amazon! https://t.co/jjQlWpCv6n
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) October 26, 2024
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) got in a chuckle for obvious reasons:
Wow, I had to write an op-ed to make lib reporters feel unsafe, but now they feel unsafe when an editorial *isn’t* written.
Journalistic standards continue to decline.
— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) October 25, 2024
Perhaps most amusing were the calls for “conservative” columnist Jennifer Rubin to step up and practice what she preached after she praised the LA Times resignations and wondered when the rest of the editors at the Times would follow suit:
Yesterday @JRubinBlogger applauded an LAT Times editor who resigned when the paper refused to endorse. She asked "where are the rest of them?" expecting more resignations
Now that WaPo is not endorsing, resigning from the paper seems like the honorable thing for her to do. pic.twitter.com/CfV8zutnzp
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) October 25, 2024
Yesterday, @JRubinBlogger praised LA Times staffers who resigned when their paper announced it would not endorse a candidate for president. She wondered why more people had not quit.
Today, Rubin’s paper, the Washington Post, also said they’ll not endorse.
What will she do now? https://t.co/e7JAbl2Phs pic.twitter.com/WHS96DvDp3
— Tim Murtaugh (@TimMurtaugh) October 25, 2024
Have you resigned yet or do you lack courage https://t.co/DYc0md5dyA
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) October 25, 2024
I think what Jennifer Rubin meant is that other people should resign.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) October 25, 2024
Cooke’s probably right. As of this writing, the only thing Rubin has done has been to add her name to the following letter from the opinion columnists who objected to the presidential non-endorsement decision:
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. This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020. There is no contradiction between The Post’s important role as an independent newspaper and its practice of making political endorsements, both as a matter of guidance to readers and as a statement of core beliefs. That has never been more true than in the current campaign. An independent newspaper might someday choose to back away from making presidential endorsements. But this isn’t the right moment, when one candidate is advocating positions that directly threaten freedom of the press and the values of the Constitution.
The dissenting Post opinion columnists:https://t.co/mMYbnt1fhS pic.twitter.com/2GuOpFhdwa
— Ben Mullin (@BenMullin) October 25, 2024
So stunningly brave, right? LOL.
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It’s truly amazing to see how far off the deep end these people have gone. They’re certifiably insane.
The topper is the tweet from Karen Attiah: “What an insult to those of us who have literally put our careers and lives on the line, to call out threats to human rights and democracy.”
Funny… I don’t recall her being shot at by a deranged incel while leading a political rally.
They seem to be against human rights, not for them.
These people seem very emotional for a news paper. The brass despises Trump of course but they don’t want to be saddled with Kamala if she wins..
I don’t see how they could possibly avoid that fate if we have to live with it — a fate they promoted like Carter promoted liver pills.
It’s cute that these clowns think that their opinions matter.
They don’t.
That which they are outraged about is a movement aimed directly at them.
They, and the NYT, cannot cease to exist soon enough.
These people have forgotten that their function is to “light the path so we can find our way,” to paraphrase. How arrogant can they be? Very.
.
The leftist flacks squealing about Trump’s authoritarianism, but bow and scrape to the Democrat Party—the only one to actually have political prisoners (for example, J6 protestors, some still rotting in jail, without bail, in pretrial detention; and pro-life protestors in jail for the “crime” of praying near abortion abattoirs).
Exactly.
“Trump says he’s going to put everyone in prison when he becomes president who he determines has engaged trying to rig the election. If you use his 2020 standard, that would mean people like Ruby Freeman, Shaye Moss, Marc Elias, Zuckerberg, and hundred of others would be jailed.”
My submitted ballot looks better every day. This would be like winning a raffle you didn’t know was included in the ticket price.
The October Surprise reminds you of their numerous winnings of the Beulah Surprise.
How about this novel concept:
If you don’t want to be prosecuted for rigging an election, DON’T RIG AN ELECTION.
No, it isn’t. Your job as an editorial board is to see to it that the “news impacting our society and culture” is reported in a neutral and non-biased manner so the reader may be informed and come to their own conclusions/opinions on the days news that might impact them. It is not your job to give your opinion on the days news. And it certainly isn’t your job to endorse any given candidate even to “help guide readers”. Your job is to report the news. And nothing more.
Pack up your troubles in your old kit bag and wail wail wail!
good move by bezos
One word for the whole situation: Hilarious.
My interpretation. I think the Harris campaign and the DNC in general know the real facts on how the race is going. IMO, just having Harris lose isn’t going to get their panties in a bunch all that much. If you are one of the 435 + 100 elected or work for one of the 535 you care first and foremost that YOU keep your job. Having the WH is a “good thing”, but way behind keeping YOUR “good thing”.
I think the DNC knows Harris is losing and is sort of OK with it. Things are a mess (economy, two wars not going well, inflation, etc., etc.) Let Trump win, blame the mess on him starting the day after the election. (I am old enough to remember that the Viet Nam War–a JFK/LBJ invention–became “Mr. Nixon’s war” immediately after he got elected)
I think their real polling data shows a down ballot problem. Those 435+100 and hangers-on will throw Harris to the wind in a microsecond if it means keeping their job.
Oh, is WaPo still in business? If not for headlines about their antics, I wouldn’t have known. And I still don’t care.
I do find these non-endorsements by two of the three leading members of the left’s propaganda arm to be surprising.
Its not as if the press has hesitated to publish the most fanciful, ugly and distorted ideas about Trump and MAGA for the last 8 years, so why would their masters be pulling back on the leash this close to the election?
I see Elon Musk’s smiling face in the background, for some reason.
We should ask ourselves why Bezos would have taken this unusual step of blocking their “standard” endorsement of the Democrat. I can’t see anything but that he believes Harris is not in the ball park of being qualified. Can anyone think of another motive?
The obvious answer is that he doesn’t want to post another L… but it just doesn’t seem like enough motive. At this point it would be like falling on your cocktail garnish sword.
Just FYI Robert Kagan (opinion editor who resigned) is the husband of Victoria Nuland former #2 at State Dept and largely speaking the author of the decade and a half debacle of Ukraine. She and Kagen are very emblematic of the DC establishment culture/Rich Men North of Richmond where everyone in positions of real power or influence behind the scenes has multiple ties to each other in a sort of ‘incestuous’ web of favors, mentors, colleagues, current/former bosses and marriages.
After a month I’m still SMH over Abedin and Soros. It’s insane.
At least Jackie Kennedy picked a non-political [inflation adjusted] billionaire.
It’s not like we can’t tell which they support just by reading some of their “news articles”.
Does anyone really vote according to a newspaper endorsement? What if WAPO had endorsed Trump? Now that would be fun.
Nice to be so self-important. Ceatures of The West Wing yet incapable of understanding that it was fiction and the real world does not act that way. Nice to be so smart.
I am happy about all the enjoyment Stacey had writing this post, and all the enjoyment her readers are having reading it!