Why major newspapers aren't supporting Kamala Harris

In this extremely close presidential race, the big surprise of the fall campaign turned out to be the failure of two major newspapers to deliver expected endorsements for Kamala Harris and against Donald Trump. Since voting is already in full swing in many states, the Los Angeles Times'Owner and The Washington PostInexcusably late, the editor of , announced that he was suddenly disillusioned with the whole idea of ​​supporting presidential candidates.

Denying support to Harris after both newspapers reported on Trump's apparent unfitness for office strikes me as pure cowardice. Even though I served on the Los Angeles Times' Editorial staff For 18 years I have believed that the value of recommendations can certainly be questioned. Still, the timing here encourages speculation that these newspapers are preparing for a possible Trump victory by signaling a willingness to accommodate rather than oppose the incoming administration.

At each newspaper, the editorial board had prepared a draft or sketch of a Harris endorsement and was waiting (and waiting and waiting) for final approval. On Wednesday, the L.A. Times Editorial Editor Mariel Garza told her team, which included me, that the owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, would not allow advertising. She then resigned in protest.

Than thousands of angry Just While readers were canceling their subscriptions, Soon-Shiong publicly asserted himself. But he said the board “chose to remain silent.”

Nonsense. We made no such choice. We were ready to support Harris, and Soon-Shiong's post on X was the first time I or my editorial colleagues had heard of a parallel analysis. After being so casually thrown under the bus, I resigned on Thursday. My colleague Karin Klein also announced her resignation.

On Friday, the post Publisher and CEO William Lewis released a statement saying his newspaper would not be participating in the presidential election now or ever again. A member of the post The editors resigned. Subscribers canceled.

Read: Don't cancel The Washington Post. Cancel Amazon Prime.

Remember, this is the same news organization that adopted the slogan “Democracy Dies in Darkness” during the first Trump administration. It can also die in broad daylight. In this year's race, a non-election ignores Trump's unique unfitness for office, demonstrated time and time again by his dishonesty, his false claims of winning the 2020 election, his criminal convictions, his misdemeanors, his race-baiting, and his threats has retaliatory measures against his opponents and many other characteristics that make him a danger to the nation.

Lewis and Soon-Shiong both said they wanted to let voters make their own decisions.

I hear some version of this irritating statement every four years, although it usually comes from readers asking why newsrooms don't simply provide the facts, as news reports do, and leave the judgment to readers. Publishers and newspaper owners should know better.

Editorials express a newspaper's institutional position, based on clearly stated values ​​and expressed through logical (and sometimes emotional) arguments supported by evidence. In a process unique to journalism, they are shaped by daily back-and-forth discussions among editors. The editorial board is separate from the newsroom, where reporters are supposed to keep their opinions to themselves.

Endorsements and other editorials are much like a lawyer's closing argument to a jury after a long trial involving numerous witnesses and exhibits. They remind the reader of everything they've read, seen, and heard, and then put it all together in a compelling presentation. They make a case. And Then The readers decide.

The Just The editorial board went without presidential election support for more than three decades, largely because readers and the newsroom were so outraged by Richard Nixon's support for re-election in 1972 that publishers were too cautious (or rather, too rude) to to take a stand again. But soon after I got there Justthe editorial team promised to campaign for the presidency again in the 2008 primaries. We argued—in an editorial, of course—that if we claimed to support transparency, voter engagement, and civic participation, we were obligated to make a decision and vigorously defend our election.

In a series of editorials leading up to the endorsement, we invited readers to examine and question a range of fundamental ideas, such as “liberty” and “the pursuit of happiness,” as expressed by these and others in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution Principles are applied to current challenges. We then compared the main candidates based on these values ​​and voted for the relatively unknown Barack Obama.

Some critics argue that editorials don't change anyone's voice, but that's beside the point. Even voters who have already made up their minds often look for a well-reasoned explanation as to why their choice is the right one. And let's not be so sure that a strong argument on an editorial page, even one from California or the District of Columbia, has no bearing on the outcome of a close race that could be won or lost by just a few votes in a Pennsylvania district.

Paul Farhi: Is American journalism headed for an “extinction stage event”?

Soon-Shiong's alternative, a pros and cons matrix with no choice, would not be an editorial. It would be as if a lawyer decided not to engage in closing arguments but instead said, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, here are some reasons why you should decide for my client, and a number of reasons too “Why you should decide against him.” The proposed comparison of Trump and Harris' policies doesn't make much sense on its own either. As president, Trump was the primary policymaker during his time in office. Harris wasn't a policymaker at all as vice president, so the comparison would be inaccurate. An editor would immediately recognize this error. Soon-Shiong may have missed it, but I wonder if he wanted to dictate the outcome of the endorsement.

When short-circuiting the Just According to the editors, Soon-Shiong's message has only become more incoherent. He said Thursday his goal was to avoid a political split. But his adult daughter, Nika Soon-Shiong, said in a series of X-posts and on a Saturday New York Times Story that the family met and collectively decided against supporting Harris to protest the vice president's support for Israel. Not true, said Patrick Soon-Shiong Los Angeles Times on Saturday.

“Nika expresses her opinion in her personal capacity,” but not for them Justhe said.

Instead of a clear, well-argued editorial, readers are left with an incomprehensible message and journalistic failure. Someone should write about it. It could be a good editorial.