‘Bailing on presidential endorsement is part of a broader move,’ Poynter Institute analyst Rick Edmonds wrote
The Washington Post stuns observers by not making a presidential endorsement
‘MediaBuzz’ host Howard Kurtz reports on how The Washington Post is refraining from making a presidential endorsement for the first time in decades on ‘Special Report.’
The Washington Post has received a lot of attention for its decision not to endorse a presidential candidate after widespread internal backlash, but it’s hardly the only paper to pull the plug on formally backing a nominee ahead of Election Day.
The Washington Post has been in disarray since its decision was announced, with many liberal staffers publicly condemning the decision not to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris. There have been resignations from Post staffers and editorial board members, a mass exodus of subscribers and owner Jeff Bezos even had to defend the "principled decision" in a rare op-ed.
The Post’s ordeal came on the heels of the Los Angeles Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong declaring that his paper would not endorse any candidate in the presidential race, citing divisive times. Like the Post, the LA. Times had predictably backed Democrats for president in the past, although it started in 2008, while the Post had been doing endorsements in every election except one (1988) since 1976.
Some liberal newspapers have refrained from endorsing a candidate in the 2024 presidential election. (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid/Evelyn Hockstein)
On Monday, USA Today followed the Post and LA Times and announced it wouldn’t publish an endorsement.
"While USA TODAY will not endorse for president, local editors at publications across the USA TODAY Network have the discretion to endorse at a state or local level," USA Today spokesperson Lark-Marie Antón told Fox News Digital.
"Why are we doing this? Because we believe America's future is decided locally – one race at a time. And with more than 200 publications across the nation, our public service is to provide readers with the facts that matter and the trusted information they need to make informed decisions," the spokesperson added.
The Minnesota Star Tribune was out in front of other papers, as it announced in August that it would refrain from endorsing a candidate.
"This election season, we’re going to try something different in Strib Voices: Rather than issue candidate or ballot endorsements, we’re going to evaluate the key issues relevant to the most important contests, and offer readers a studied perspective on how they might view them at the ballot box. We’ll also offer the candidates from each party in every major race in Minnesota the chance to make their own arguments for why they deserve your vote," Minnesota Star Tribune opinion editor Phil Morris wrote.
"Stepping away from endorsements and trying this new approach is something we’re excited about," he continued. "By focusing on the issues, rather than telling people how they should vote, we hope to use the tools of opinion journalism in more empowering ways that add value to your voting experience — rather than reducing our analysis to a binary recommendation."
Billionaire Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos wrote on op-ed explaining why his paper did not endorse a presidential candidate this year. The decision infuriated many of the paper's staffers and readers who wanted to see it come out more officially against former President Trump.
Poynter Institute media business analyst Rick Edmonds wrote that "bailing on presidential endorsement is part of a broader move among regional publications away from airing staff-written opinions," and offered several reasons why he feels this is true. He cited short-staffed newsrooms where "something’s got to go," studies indicating editorials don’t generate as much traffic, the notion that readers don’t want to be told what to think and that studies have shown news outlets don’t move the needle with endorsements.
"Lastly, Edmonds suggested readers simply don't understand how newspapers operate."
"No matter how many times the clarification is offered that an editorial board and the newsroom operate separately, many readers don’t see the distinction or don’t believe there is one. That’s especially true in digital format, where the editorial pages are harder to wall off than print editions," Edmonds wrote.
In 2022, the South Florida's Sun Sentinel announced it would not endorse candidates going forward. A Washington Post staffer told Fox News Digital that the "Democracy Dies in Darkness" paper "totally" could have avoided the widespread outrage inside the newsroom if it announced plans sooner.
Newsweek published a piece headlined, "Newspapers That Backed Joe Biden Last Time Won't Endorse Kamala Harris," that put a spotlight on liberal newspapers skipping the 2024 election.
"In the 2020 presidential election, Biden received endorsements from major national and regional newspapers, as well as some traditionally conservative publications. The notable show of support from the press for Biden came after four years of Trump in office. However, many newspapers that endorsed the president in 2020 have declined to endorse his successor for the Democratic nomination after he stepped down from the race in July," Newsweek reported.
However, many newspapers that endorsed the president in 2020 have declined to endorse his successor for the Democratic nomination after he stepped down from the race in July," Newsweek reported.
Meanwhile, British newspaper The Economist endorsed Harris on Thursday with a lengthy takedown of Trump that declared his opponent is "underwhelming," "indecisive" and "unsure" but "might surprise" and turn out to be a stellar president.
Harris has been criticized for harping on negative talking points related to Trump, instead of embracing her own policies and ideas. The Economist took a similar approach in its endorsement of the vice president, spending 1,100 word attacking Trump before getting around to why it would endorse Harris.
"Next to Mr. Trump, Kamala Harris stands for stability. True, she is an underwhelming machine politician. She has struggled to tell voters what she wants to do with power. She seems indecisive and unsure. However, she has abandoned the Democrats’ most left-wing ideas and is campaigning near the centre, flanked by Liz Cheney and other Republican exiles," The Economist wrote.
"She has ordinary shortcomings, none of them disqualifying. Some of her policies are worse than her opponent’s, for example her taste for regulation and for further taxing wealth-creation. Some are merely less bad, on trade and the deficit, say. But some, on climate and abortion, are unambiguously better," it continued. "It is hard to imagine Ms. Harris being a stellar president, though people can surprise you. But you cannot imagine her bringing about a catastrophe."
The Economist published another piece explaining why it endorses political candidates.
"Our approach is simple. The Economist offers independent journalism on the forces changing the world. To that end, we deploy correspondents from Chicago to Shanghai to provide rigorous, fact-checked reporting and analysis. That work informs our Leader articles, which don’t just describe problems but offer ideas for how to fix them. To give opinions on policies but not politicians would be odd. So for decades we have written endorsements," The Economist wrote.
"How we develop our opinions matters. The independence of our journalism is protected by the structure of our organization, which has no commercial influence over editorial decisions," it continued. "The Economist Group has no majority owner—our largest shareholder owns 43.4% of the company. Our endorsements are never reviewed by the chairman or the board of directors."
Fox News Digital’s David Rutz and Joseph A. Wulfsohn contributed to this report.
Brian Flood is a media editor/reporter for FOX News Digital. Story tips can be sent to
