The billionaires' cowardice left the Washington Post and LA Times without endorsements

The newspaper supported Joe Biden in 2020. It supported Hillary Clinton in 2016, but had called Trump “a unique threat to American democracy” nearly three months earlier. Like the Washington Post, the LA Times endorsed Barack Obama twice, and then Clinton and Biden, from 2008 to 2020. Importantly, the LA Times endorsed Harris in 2014 when she ran for re-election as the state's attorney general, and then endorsed her successful run for U.S. Senate in 2016.

For Garza, there's a lot at stake in this election, at least for people who aren't billionaires. And we must consider the possibility that those in charge of these newspapers are OK with Trump—or afraid of him. Given the size and influence of these papers, none of these possibilities are reassuring. On , Trump will see this “as an invitation to further intimidate” Bezos, and he called it “disturbing spinelessness in an institution known for its courage.”

A Washington Post report on the non-endorsement, which cited two sources briefed on the events, said: “The decision not to publish was made by the Post's owner – Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.”

Apparently, Soon-Shiong and Bezos are less concerned about their newspaper's duty to the public and history than they are about what might happen to them if Trump wins and carries out his plans for retaliation.

As important as it is to save newspapers, an obvious downside to billionaire bailouts is their influence on those publications and their editorial pages. (Furthermore, these billionaire owners did not put an end to the layoffs of journalists or the takeover bids that plagued major publishers before being “rescued” by them.)

Admittedly, the question arises as to how effective recommendations are.

According to the American Presidency Project, which examined the country's 100 largest newspapers by circulation, in 2016, 57 newspapers (with a total circulation of 13,095,067) supported Clinton for president. Another three newspapers, with a total circulation of 3,243,140, ​​urged their readers not to vote for Trump, and 26 disagreed. The Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Florida Times-Union (315,666 total copies) were the only two to support Trump.

However, that didn't help Clinton much. She lost. Of course not in the popular vote, but she still lost.

What is striking is that in 2020 there were almost as many newspapers that did not support this (44) as 47 that supported the eventual winner Biden. (Trump received seven endorsements at the time.) There are likely several reasons why smaller newspapers decline to endorse, including the public assumption that endorsements determine coverage and the anger that such endorsements inevitably provoke.

A newspaper subscriber is far more likely to cancel his subscription if the newspaper supports the candidate he opposed than for someone who does not subscribe to become a reader because his candidate was supported. It is a high-risk, high-reward venture. But it's still something newspapers do, and if other owners and publishers can take the risk, then billionaires certainly can too.

Soon-Shiong posted a comment on X-Wednesday that misrepresents the work of editorial teams:

A recommendation is not an analysis. It's an opinion. It selects a candidate in the same way readers select one. The path suggested by Soon-Shiong is not a path that editors and editors would take. Because editors take sides.

However, Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review that she had received no such request from Soon-Shiong to write an analysis of the candidates.

In 2016, nearly three months before the Washington Post endorsed Clinton's candidacy, it published an editorial calling Trump “a unique threat” to democracy. It should be noted that the newspaper was doing this years before “saving democracy” became an issue. Trump's threat to democracy is even more evident today.

And yet the newspaper that tells us that “democracy dies in the dark” can’t be bothered to fight for it.

Yes, all hell might have broken loose if the newspaper had supported Harris and Trump won and then turned against the press like he promised. But hell will befall more vulnerable people to a much greater extent. It is inexcusable that the super-rich who have bought these huge and influential platforms appear to be more interested in their own interests than in the interests of the readers they serve.