Washington Post reels from Bezos decision to not endorse

The Washington Post is reeling from a decision to abstain from endorsing a presidential candidate in the 2024 election, a move that was reportedly made by billionaire owner Jeff Bezos after its editorial board drafted an endorsement of Vice President Harris.

The decision has sparked widespread anger inside the Post’s newsroom and earned the Amazon founder sharp condemnation from voices in Democratic politics and the media.

In a note to readers on Friday, Post Publisher Will Lewis, whom Bezos hired earlier this year to shake up the Post’s business and editorial strategy, said the outlet would not be endorsing either Harris or former President Trump — a first for the Post in more than 35 years.

“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,” Lewis wrote. “That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for.”

Lewis’s announcement was immediately met with backlash, including from Pulitzer Prize-winning former editor Marty Baron, who was hired shortly before Bezos purchased the newspaper in 2013. Baron blasted the outlet’s lack of an endorsement as setting a dangerous precedent.

“This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty,” said Baron, who worked under Bezos for nearly a decade. “[Trump] will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner [Bezos] (and others). Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

The Post’s news division reported on Friday that Bezos personally made the decision not to allow an endorsement of Harris after the newspaper’s editorial board had already drafted an editorial backing her that was slated to be published before the election.

The Post did not respond to The Hill’s request for further comment on the decision to kill the endorsement or the backlash the company has received as a result.

Current and former staffers at the Post spent the day Friday expressing shock and outrage over what many there say is a cowardly and calculated move by a top business mogul using his power to undermine the core principles of a free press.

“Today has been an absolute stab in the back,” Karen Attiah, an opinion editor at the Post, wrote on social media. “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.”

Robert McCartney, a former editor and columnist at the Post, wrote on social media there is speculation in the newsroom that Bezos “may want to avoid risk of endangering Amazon’s government contracts if Trump wins.”

Several Post staffers, when contacted on Friday, referred The Hill to a statement made by the outlet’s worker’s union just hours after Lewis’s note to readers was published.

In its statement, The Washington Post Guild voiced outrage that the newspaper’s owner would meddle in its editorial decisions, and that Lewis would comply.

“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 Guild said. “We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers. This decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it.”

Outside of the Post’s newsroom, there was also scorn for the Post’s decision from Democrats.

“So much for 'Democracy Dies in Darkness,'” commented Susan Rice, a former domestic policy adviser in President Biden’s White House. “This is the most hypocritical, chicken s‑‑‑ move from a publication that is supposed to hold people in power to account."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the episode 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,” he said in a post on social platform X. “Clearly, he is afraid of antagonizing Trump and losing Amazon’s federal contracts. Pathetic.”

Others noted that while major newspaper endorsements might not sway voters' opinions, a billionaire media mogul interfering in longstanding editorial processes at one of the country’s largest and most influential news organizations is deeply troubling.

“The WaPo endorsing Harris would move exactly zero voters her way, but still lol at this cowardly s‑‑‑ from the crew that brought us 'democracy dies in darkness,'” former President Obama staffer Tommy Vietor commented online.

Former President Trump’s campaign seized on the news, saying in a statement to The Hill “you know it's bad for Kamala when the Washington Compost won't even endorse her.”

A campaign representative for Vice President Harris, who was earlier this month endorsed by The New York Times, did not return a request for comment.

The decision at the Post comes just days after a similar move at the Los Angeles Times, where owner Patrick Soon-Shiong opted not to endorse either candidate. That decision has led to a number of top editors at the LA Times resigning from the paper in protest.

But the Post’s decision not to endorse a candidate is being viewed as uniquely consequential, given the newspaper’s historic standing from the Pentagon Papers and Watergate years.

“I have subscribed to the Washington Post since 1993, but I just canceled my subscription today because of the paper’s abdication of duty to endorse a candidate in the most consequential election of my lifetime,” said Keith Boykin, a former aide to President Clinton. “Good riddance.”