Newspapers' late decision to not endorse any candidate raises questions

Critics wonder if billionaire owners pulled Harris endorsements out of self-interest

- Bhagyashree Garekar

WASHINGTON - There is something a little quaint in the outrage over two prominent American dailies, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, breaking with longstanding tradition by refusing to endorse a presidential candidate less than two weeks before the polls.

Readers are reportedly cancelling subscriptions by the thousands in protest against the decisions which were imposed by the newspapers' billionaire owners upon editors who had proposed to endorse Democratic candidate and Vice-President Kamala Harris.

Critics argue that the newspapers are failing in their duty to take a stand in a critical election where Republican candidate Donald Trump's rhetoric and embrace of far-right extremism have raised alarm. The supposed neutrality of the newspapers benefits only Trump, they say.

Hardly anyone thinks endorsements from newspapers matter. Still, there are misgivings about the owners' motivations, as questions emerge over why they decided to weigh in so close to an unusually tight presidential election on Nov 5.

Did they do so because they think Ms Harris is a losing bet, or because they disagree with her progressive policies? Or do they fear retribution if Trump wins?

Few buy the argument made by Post owner Jeff Bezos, who is also the Amazon founder, that it is a matter of principle.

"What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision," Mr Bezos wrote in an Oct 28 opinion piece in the Washington Post, three days after announcing the endorsement pullback.

He did not block presidential endorsements in the two campaigns in 2016 and 2020 since he bought the Post in 2013 for US$250 million (S$331 million), saying then that he wanted to reinvent the 147-year-old newspaper.