Washington Post staffers and liberal critics are taking aim at the “Democracy in Darkness” paper over its decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential race.
Washington Post staffers are revolting after the “Democracy Dies in Darkness” paper announced it wouldn’t endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential election.
On Friday, Post publisher and CEO William Lewis announced the paper would not be making a presidential endorsement this year, nor in any future presidential election. “We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” Lewis declared.
Shortly after, the Washington Post Guild released a scathing statement condemning the decision.
“We are deeply concerned that The Washington Post – an American news institution in the nation’s capital – would make the decision to no longer endorse presidential candidates, especially a mere 11 days ahead of an immensely consequential election. The role of an Editorial Board is to do just this: to share opinions on the news impacting our society and culture and endorse candidates to help guide readers,” the Guild said.
“The message from our chief executive, Will Lewis – not from the Editorial Board itself – makes us concerned that management interfered with the work out of members in Editorial,” the Guild continued. “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.”
The Guild added: “We are already seeing cancelations from once loyal readers. This decision undercuts the works of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it.”
The Guild put up a post with a link encouraging action, saying, “Are you a Washington Post reader concerned with today’s decision for the Editorial Board to not endorse a candidate this election cycle? Send a letter to CEO and Publisher Will Lewis and Editorial Page Editor David Shipley.”
Post editor at large Robert Kagan resigned because of the decision, and former executive editor Martin “Marty” Baron denounced it as “cowardice.”
“This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty. @realdonaldtrump will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner @jeffbezos (and others). Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage,” Baron wrote on X.
Washington Post columnist and associate editor Karen Tumulty reposted Baron’s message.
Post climate change reporter Brianna Sacks also retweeted Baron and wrote in reaction to the news of the decision, “We won a Pulitzer for public service for our coverage of the Jan. 6 insurrection.”
A former high-level Washington Post employee also sided with Baron’s sentiment, calling out the “feckless” decision.
“It very disingenuously draws falls equivalencies,” they told Fox News Digital. “This is not, for example, Kamala Harris vs. Mitt Romney. This is Kamala Harris against someone who tried to disenfranchise the electorate last time.”
“And if you’re going to decide that it’s not the role of an editorial board to endorse, then don’t endorse. Don’t endorse for Senate. Don’t endorse for House. Just don’t endorse,” they continued.
The ex-staffer has been hearing from distressed former colleagues, saying they are “shocked” and “deeply disappointed,” and said current staffers think the explanation that was given is a “fig leaf.”
“I’m hearing that they are being absolutely flooded with subscription cancelations,” the source said.
They told Fox News Digital, “I have never been honestly ashamed of The Post until today. ‘The first mission of a newspaper is to tell the truth as nearly as the truth can be ascertained.’ That’s from Eugene Meyer’s Principles of The Post. Today’s decision is an abject abdication of those principles.”
The former Post employee warned of the “chilling effect” this could have on the newsroom as a result.
“You know this is an editorial issue. There really was a church/state divide. But I do know that there are people in editorial who have roots in the newsroom and so it stings,” they said. “And I think people in the newsroom are thinking ‘if they killed an endorsement, can a news story be far behind.’ And Lewis has certainly expressed willingness to at least try that. If Trump wins, who in their right mind would want you to cover that administration for The Post, looking over your shoulder all the time to see if the publisher or owner is going to to be miffed. There’s a chilling effect on the mission of the place that this move sends.”
Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah took to X to scold her employer.
“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,” Attiah wrote.
In its own coverage of the news in the Style section, The Post reported, “The decision has roiled many on the editorial staff, which operates independently from The Post’s news staff, a long-standing tradition of American journalism designed to separate opinion writing from day-to-day news coverage.”
Health care reporter Fenit Nirappil tweeted of the report, “Our news side continues to report fearlessly. Even when it’s about our own bosses.”
He included images of two particular quotes:
“An endorsement of Harris had been drafted by Post editorial page staffers but had yet to be published, according to two sources briefed on the sequence of events who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owner — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos — according to the same sources.”
“This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty. Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners),” former Post executive editor Martin Baron, who led the paper while Trump was president, said in a text message to The Post. “History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”
A source close to Washington Post leadership claimed to Fox News Digital that Bezos was not involved in the decision. However, a separate source spoke with Fox News Digital and believes otherwise, citing The Post’s own reporting claiming the billionaire directly intervened.
“A non-endorsement would have made sense if it had been announced before the nominees were known. But doing it 11 days before the election suggests Bezos is worried he’d lose government contracts if Trump wins. So it signals intimidation works,” a current Post staffer told Fox News Digital. “Trump certainly caused trouble for Bezos in his presidency by killing a big cloud computing contract and messing with the Amazon postal contract. So he knows how expensive a second term might be if Trump were mad at our coverage.”
The staffer also said Baron is “regarded as a hero” for his X post, adding “he framed the stakes just right.”
As far the Post’s current leader, Lewis, the source said he has “lost the newsroom.”
“I wouldn’t trust a word Will Lewis or any of his people say,” the staffer told Fox News Digital. “He lost the newsroom over the summer. He never shows his face anymore. We get weekly rah-rah emails. That’s it. He used to wander the newsroom but apparently knows he’s not welcome.”
A Post spokesperson declined to comment further but reiterated it was a “Washington Post decision.”
11 Post opinion columnists wrote a statement calling the decision a “terrible mistake.”
“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 for which we have worked a combined 275 years. 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,” they said.
“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.”
It was signed by Perry Bacon Jr., E.J. Dionne Jr., Lee Hockstader, David Ignatius, Heather Long, Ruth Marcus, Dana Milbank, Catherine Rampell, Eugene Robinson, Jennifer Rubin and Karen Tumulty.
In the political world, former Biden adviser Susan Rice wrote multiple posts expressing her outrage.
“As a DC native and lifelong subscriber to the Post, I’m disgusted. You have lost us,” she wrote, then added, “So much for ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness’. This is the most hypocritical, chicken s[—] move from a publication that is supposed to hold people in power to account.”
She responded to a report of a Washington Post editorial board member blasting the decision, saying, “So what are they going to do about it? The whole Post editorial department should walk out.”
“This is what Oligarchy is about. Jeff Bezos, the 2nd wealthiest person in the world and the owner of the Washington Post, overrides his editorial board and refuses to endorse Kamala. Clearly, he is afraid of antagonizing Trump and losing Amazon’s federal contracts. Pathetic,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., wrote.
