[ad_1]
In a twist louder than a silent auction, The Washington Post has announced it won’t endorse a candidate in this year’s presidential election. That’s right, folks—no shiny stamp of approval, no “Best in Show” award for democracy this election cycle! Everyone’s favorite paper, now owned by the richest man who isn’t an evil genius (yet), decided to ditch its endorsements after more than three decades of caffeinated political maneuvering.
Post publisher Will Lewis made the shocking announcement that they were “returning to our roots.” So it seems after decades of cozying up to candidates, the Post’s editorial staff will now be playing the role of independent spectator this season—reminiscent of that friend who promises to stay neutral at a bar debate but secretly texts their buddy in the corner for backup.
Sources tell us that the decision, made in typical top-down Amazon fashion, came straight from the high castle of Jeff Bezos. Yes, the billionaire overlord himself, who’s probably too busy launching rockets to space or plotting his next algorithm to worry about endorsements, decided that democracy wasn’t something the Post needed to actively support.
Meanwhile, whispers from the editorial board suggest they had already crafted a glowing endorsement for Vice President Kamala Harris—which promptly went back into the “to be burned” pile without so much as a cursory glance. Because why support democracy when you can simply be a spectator to the chaos?
Lewis’s justification included the acknowledgment that this decision would undoubtedly be interpreted as “a tacit endorsement of one candidate or a condemnation of another.” Perfect! Have your cake and eat it too by not officially endorsing anyone and letting the public do the interpretative dance: “Is it a protest? Is it a neutrality stance? Is it the editorial board sending their deepest apologies to everyone for actually doing their job?”
Post journalists aren’t the only ones left picking up the pieces of this editorial puzzle. Former Post executive editor Marty Baron slammed the decision as “cowardice” that leaves democracy in a precarious position, while Robert Kagan, an opinion editor who gracefully exited stage left in protest, accused Bezos of attempting to woo Trump back to a throne made of Twitter and gold.
You have to admire the irony: a newspaper famous for its watchful eye on power is now being led by a titan of industry who once took ribbing from that very power. The Post could win awards for its coverage of everything from political abuses to insurrections but now finds itself unsure if it should even wade into the turbulent waters of a presidential endorsement without first consulting the man who’s been calling it “fake news” for years.
Unsurprisingly, this move comes on the heels of a trend where newspaper chains are saying “no thanks” to political endorsements. Maybe they’re all huddled around a board meeting table, drinking overpriced lattes and reminiscing about the glory days when political endorsements were just a normal Tuesday for them.
So here we are, left watching with popcorn in hand as The Washington Post attempts to redefine its identity while the rest of the media world still tries to grapple with the mammoth undertaking of earning their audience’s trust—without offering a clear endorsement! You have to admire the audacity. After all, isn’t it sweetly ironic that in times when democracy stylizes itself as a theatrical production, the audience is left wondering who to root for when even the critics have opted out of the front row?
Source
