A pivotal announcement came to light this past Friday from a leading American media outlet. The publication represented by the motto ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness’ has declared that it will not be endorsing any presidential candidate in the upcoming 2024 election, nor indeed in any future presidential race. This move harkens back to the paper’s original ethos of withholding from candidate endorsements.
The paper reaffirmed its stance, ‘The Washington Post has no plan of being involved in the endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election, nor in subsequent ones. Our actions are rooted in our historical precedent which is not in favor of endorsing presidential candidates.’ This return to origins traces back to its traditional declaration back in the sixties.
The media outlet once stated during the presidential race of 1960, ‘The Washington Post has refrained from ‘endorsing’ any candidate contesting the presidential election. This is in tune with our long-standing tradition and aligns with our approach in five of the previous six electoral races.’
This decision has been described as ‘A supporting statement in favor of the intellectual autonomy of our readers. The ultimate American decision – selecting their next president – should remain in their respective hands.’ Their noble commitment shows their faith in the thinking capacities of their readership.
Defining its bold stance, it states, ‘At the Washington Post, our core duty is ensuring all Americans access to impartial news, furnished by our newsroom. We also prioritize offering reflective and well-researched views from our opinion team, serving as a tool to aid readers in their safekeeping of independent opinions.’
Going a step further, the paper affirmed, ‘As the city’s newspaper, located in the heart of the most powerful nation on the globe, our fundamental role is to uphold our rich tradition of maintaining independence. This is, and will remain, our beacon guiding our work.’
This week ushered in another prominent proclamation from a significant West Coast paper, The Los Angeles Times. This paper, for the first time since 2008, has decided similarly to not endorse a candidate in the upcoming presidential race.
This decision instigated the resignation of the paper’s editorial leader, who voiced strong dissent over the owner’s choice not to endorse. ‘My resignation is a testimony to my disagreement with our silence,’ was her statement issued on Wednesday. ‘In turbulent times, it becomes a moral responsibility for the honest to raise their voices. This is my way of adhering to that duty.’
The Times employees’ unions appealed to their readership to resist the urge to terminate their subscriptions, following severe critique of the owner’s involvement in the controversial non-endorsement decision, a move that has generated widespread negative emotions.
‘This is a challenging period, and we understand our devoted readers may feel a range of emotions including anger, disappointment, or bewilderment. Regrettably, several have already canceled their subscriptions. However, these subscriptions are the lifeline for hundreds of the journalists in our newsroom,’ was the union’s official communication.
The union further highlighted, ‘Every day, our member-journalists invest their efforts to keep readers updated during these turbulent times. An informed democracy is, undeniably, a robust democracy.’
These recent decisions by two pivotal media houses, both located in the country’s political and cultural capitals, enforce the age-old journalistic principle of objectivity. Both outlets have made a strong statement about their role in nourishing an engaged and thoughtful public.
By refraining from offering endorsements in this critical juncture, both The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times have reiterated the importance of independent thought and discourse, enabling their readers to draw their own conclusions about political matters.
Only time will tell how these moves will impact the impending election and the long-term relationship between these publications and their readers. Yet, in this era of political polarization, the return to a nonpartisan stance may indeed serve the noble profession of journalism and invigorate the democratic principles it upholds.