Cowardice and intimidation at The Washington Post and L.A. Times
“There is a stubbornness about me that never can bear to be frightened at the will of others. My courage always rises at every attempt to intimidate me.” Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
Robert Reich speaks out about the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times failure to endorse a candidate for president. Both stop short of endorsing Trump.
NBC News . . . In the past, The Post endorsed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016 and President Joe Biden in 2020. In the 2016 opinion piece, the editorial board called Trump a “bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America’s enemies.”
“As president, he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world,” the editorial board wrote.
Robert . . . I apologize for bothering you again today, but this is important. Will Lewis, the chief executive of the Washington Post, announced today the paper would not endorse a presidential candidate this year.
Lewis’s explanation raises more questions than it answers. The Post has made an endorsement for president in every election since 1976, when it supported the candidacy of Jimmy Carter.
Before the late 1970s, the Post did not usually make presidential endorsements, although it made an exception in 1952 to back Dwight D. Eisenhower. Yet it wasn’t until the 1970s — with its exposure of Richard Nixon’s illegal break-ins at the Watergate complex and subsequent cover-ups — that the Washington Post became a respected national newspaper with a reputation for holding the powerful accountable.
Why decide not endorse now, when America faces an election with potentially enormous consequences for democracy at home and abroad — with someone on the presidential ballot arguably far worse than Nixon?
Besides, the paper had endorsed Hillary Clinton over Trump in 2016, and Joe Biden over Trump in 2020. What’s changed now?
The only credible explanation I can think of is that the Post’s billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos, doesn’t want to raise the ire of Donald Trump, should Trump become president — especially now that Trump has declared his intention to punish his opponents.
Bezos’s other businesses have many federal government contracts, and his largest — Amazon — is the current target of a federal antitrust suit.
Assuming this is the explanation, it stinks.
The failure to endorse undermines the credibility of one of our leading newspapers. It prevents The Washington Post from exercising its responsibility to tell the public where it stands on Trump and why.
The New York Times’s editorial board, which operates separately from the newsroom, endorsed Harris for president on Sept. 30, saying:
“It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump.”
At least one member of the Washington Post’s opinions department, Robert Kagan, has resigned. The rest of the opinions department should do so as well. Immediately.
We are come to a juncture in America where, as in the first Gilded Age, enormous wealth is lodged in a very few hands — hands that are now either actively supporting Trump (such as Elon Musk) or afraid to come out against him for fear he’ll wreak vengeance on them if they do.
Trump has already seriously endangered American democracy. Those who are afraid to stand up to his bullying are only encouraging him to further assail democracy.
Marty Baron, the recent editor of The Post called the decision “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty. Baron predicted that Trump would view it as an invitation to continue to try to intimidate Bezos and others.
The Post’s move follows the decision by the billionaire owner of The Los Angeles Times, Patrick Soon-Shiong, to block a planned presidential endorsement at that newspaper as well —resulting in the resignation of the head of the editorial board and two of its writers.
Mariel Garza, who resigned as editorials editor, said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review that the editorial board had planned to endorse Kamala Harris, but that Dr. Soon-Shiong informed the editorial board on Oct. 11 that The Times would not be publishing any presidential endorsement.
“I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent,” Ms. Garza said.
“In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up.”
Exactly. And in dangerous times, dishonest and cowardly billionaires shouldn’t be able to abuse their power by preventing honest people from standing up.
This is how fascism takes root.

We already knew they were in the bag, this just inks it. I don’t think it’s that big of a deal, that what the owners feel has an impact on even the average voters’ decision making, if there really are those out there who haven’t made up their minds. It’s not like they have any credibility …
Professor Timothy Snyder highlights the parallels between today’s wealthy elites kow-towing to Trump and the German elites who facilitated Hitler’s rise to power by deferring to him.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/obeying-in-advance?utm_source=podcast-email&publication_id=310897&post_id=150757391&utm_campaign=email-play-on-substack&utm_content=watch_now_button&r=2133ns&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Joel:
Good commentary by Prof. Tim. I believe their was a parallel to this in pre-nazi Germany where people warned of the dangers.
The owners of the two papers may have done more to promote Harris by their inaction than would have been accomplished by an endorsement. it certainly got more attention. Query how influential newspaper endorsements are, particularly in presidential as opposed to local races.
@Jack,
If your point is that newspaper presidential endorsements have no effect, I think you’re right. But the point here is not the lack of an endorsement per se, it’s the billionaire owners overruling the editorial staff of the paper.
That was one of my points. The other was that ironically the owners created favorable publicity for Harris in the slamming they are taking for their actions.
@Jack,
Indeed, I’ve been reading that the editorial staff at the WaPo has been pushing back. I don’t have any verification, but I hope it’s true. If Bezos can’t stand the heat, he needs to sell to someone who understands how journalism is supposed to work.
Jack:
The issue to their endorsement? Silence brings an aura of its actions being ok and we will ignore them. It is jaw dropping to see such people who have the power to say “no” this is not acceptable to stand in silence saying nothing. We do not know what they will do in the future if trump comes to power. What will they say then? “oh well? You elected it! You the public should have known better.”
Maybe silence will bring reaction. Then to, their silence may also mean we do not have issues with trump.
Oh, the outrage of his supporters if we comment.
Diversified:
Do you get paid for your advice on the market and the economy? Get a different job. You failed with your commentary.
There is no supposed . . .
trump is an insurrectional fascistic terrorist. There is no “supposed.” It is that simple. Democrats eat their own. Kind of stupid they are as are the general public who follow in masses. This is typical of democrats and like base repubs in that respect whose masses follow a fraud.
Ed:
Do you get paid a lot for consulting? You have failed to convince this client you know what you are talking about. And your comment is “silly.”
@Bill,
Looks like he’s being paid for trolling. This is the second time he’s been spammed.
Joel:
Thank you for recognizing him. I looked and could not find anything on him from the past. Nor did I recognize it.
@Matt,
You obviously haven’t been paying attention. Biden’s has been one of the most successful presidencies in the past several decades. He dropped out not because his presidency failed but because of a terrible debate performance He was replaced by his VP, who converted Biden’s negative poll numbers to positive numbers.
Please try to learn something about the topic before posting, m’kay?
Mr. Diversified Capital:
Don’t you think you should find a different place to comment? You are hanging out here and using a company addy. How is the real estate business these days? Now please leave,.
By the way, Joel is quite right on Biden’s performance during a pandemic. Fortunately, he had the support of Congress.
Joel:
Yep!
@Edward,
Your post was spammed for trolling. We don’t feed trolls at AB.
@Edward,
We only delete troll comments. If you troll, you’re a waste of time.
Hope that helps.
@Matt,
“One bad debate performance completely wiped out this immensely successful administration.”
LOL! No, one bad debate performance didn’t completely wipe out the Biden Administration. What a silly thing to post. The Biden Administration is in power as I type this and looks to stay in place until January 2025. Biden’s bad debate performance wiped him out as a *candidate* for the 2024 election. Can you spot the difference?
BTW, Biden was polling in deep negative numbers when he pulled out. Harris was polling in positive numbers starting 21 Sept, and only dipped into negative a few days ago, far better than Biden was, according to 538.
Please don’t post here again until you learn something about the topic.
Eric:
Your last sentence negates any argument or point you make. Trump belongs in prison for fomenting an insurrection on January 6. A big supporter of TRump and you did not go. Why? Maybe just a supporter in name only?