Date: 2025-05-09 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00027626
US POLITICS 2024
WASHINGTON POST NOT ENDORSING ANY CANDIDATE
Opinion ‘Deeply, fundamentally saddened’
The Post decided not to endorse. Readers have questions.
WASHINGTON POST NOT ENDORSING ANY CANDIDATE
Opinion ‘Deeply, fundamentally saddened’
The Post decided not to endorse. Readers have questions.
The Washington Post's headquarters in D.C. on May 16, 2019. (Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty Images)
Original article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/26/washington-post-endorsement-trump-press-freedom/
Peter Burgess COMMENTARY
Peter Burgess
Opinion ‘Deeply, fundamentally saddened’
The Post decided not to endorse. Readers have questions.
By Letters to the Editor ... October 26, 2024 at 3:25 p.m. EDT
Regarding William Lewis’s Oct. 26 op-ed, “On political endorsements”:
Like most young people interested in politics, I grew up admiring The Post. As someone living outside D.C., my first awareness of The Post was as the home of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the reporters who faced down and exposed a corrupt, authoritarian-leaning administration.
Sign up for Shifts, an illustrated newsletter series about the future of work
The thing that was inspiring about the idea of journalists speaking truth to power was not just the personal courage it required but also the sense that those journalists were partners in defending something we all agreed should be defended at all costs: democracy and the systems of accountability, justice and integrity that democracy requires.
At my age, I’ve learned not to be so naive as to think journalists are running around saving democracy all day — or even that they all want to. But the most crushing thing about the past eight years for me has been the discovery that, for so many of my neighbors, there is no floor. There is no level of violence or threats of violence against others that is enough to inspire them to stand up and push back.
The most I can hope for at this point is that The Post’s decision not to endorse in this critical election is remembered with shame, as an example of what it looks like for an institution to fail to live up to its stated principles when it matters most. That would mean that some semblance of those principles were still upheld by someone somewhere.
Michele Kilpatrick, Philadelphia
When I was an undergrad at Duke University in 1984 trying to figure out what in the world to do with an English degree, I took a journalism class from a former Post reporter whose name I have sadly forgotten but whose words on the first day of class I never will: “The role of the journalist is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
That maxim inspired me to pursue a career as a journalist and later as a novelist and educator who has always supported, if sometimes grumpily, the Fourth Estate. I’m not precisely surprised by The Post’s decision not to endorse a candidate in an election in which one candidate has openly called for news organizations that do not support him to be punished. But I am deeply, fundamentally saddened. I kind of hope that old reporter, whoever he was, is not around to see this.
Kim McLarin, Boston
This election? Really?
I’m a former Republican who is disgusted by the actions of the party I once supported. Donald Trump has made it his goal to undermine people’s faith in media, science and democracy. This isn’t an accident.
Not endorsing a candidate is fine normally, but in this election? When Mr. Trump has threatened political candidates and journalists? If you’re choosing profit over ethics, so be it. But you’ve lost the respect of many, including me.
John Witt, Grovetown, Georgia
Mr. Trump’s threat
Your newspaper has done a good job reporting on the threats to our democracy posed by a second Trump presidency. And you did a good job reporting on the insurrection Donald Trump inspired and his subsequent impeachment and trial.
I understand there is a lot of reporting about how The Post came not to endorse. But from the outside, it looks to me as though The Post caved in the face of Mr. Trump’s threats. That’s frightening, and it raises a question for ordinary people like me. If Jeff Bezos, one of the richest people on the planet, and the newspaper he owns and has done so much to support don’t have the courage to call Mr. Trump out, or even to say that his opponent is a superior candidate, what are the rest of us supposed to do?
Jerome Capone, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware
No equivalence
Disappointment, disgust and despair are just some of the feelings I had when I read that The Post decided to refrain from making an endorsement for president. I read this just after I read The Post article “How Trump talks: Abrupt shifts, profane insults, confusing sentences.”
That article describes the former president’s incessant lying, frequent vulgarity, incoherent ramblings and inability to follow through on a thought. The article in effect makes the case for why Donald Trump should not be endorsed, while Vice President Kamala Harris’s behavior continues to make the case for why she should be endorsed.
The Post’s decision implies an equivalence between the candidates. There is none. There should be no question, no doubt on whom to endorse. It is cowardly not to endorse, especially when many Republicans have stepped forward to support Ms. Harris.
My fear now is that The Post’s non-endorsement will pave the way for more publications to do the same — publications that do not have the standing that The Post once had.
Addison Woodward, Chicago
A different historical precedent
The presidential election of 1800 came down to an electoral-college tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Alexander Hamilton hated Jefferson and disagreed with him on nearly every position. But in the end, Hamilton ultimately supported Jefferson. He believed that Jefferson was a principled man and a patriot who would put the good of the country first. On Burr’s character, Hamilton wrote that “all his conduct indicates that he has in view nothing less than the establishment of Supreme Power in his own person.” Were Hamilton alive today, he would surely endorse Kamala Harris for the same reason.
Democrats, Republicans and independents — please follow Hamilton’s example and put the country first. I can assure you that Dick Cheney doesn’t care for Ms. Harris’s politics, but he’s following Hamilton’s example. If he can, you can.
Barry Lurie, Philadelphia
A pleasant surprise
I was seriously considering ending my support for The Post because so many of the news articles came across to me as biased toward Vice President Kamala Harris. Columnists, of course, can write what they want, but there is a huge difference between the two forms of journalism.
I hope the decision not to endorse a presidential candidate reflects a return to journalism in the true sense of the word. I want to see less of the “clutching my pearls” stuff when reporting about Donald Trump because that kind of writing is emotional rather than factual. I believe more balanced reporting will result in a much better political climate, too.
What, for instance, is newsworthy about women coming forward, after years of silence, with stories about how Mr. Trump allegedly mistreated them? And what is newsworthy about the antics of Ms. Harris’s now-husband years ago? Save the space for real news, please! Thank you for taking the risk to stay neutral and resisting pressures to apologize for it.
Stephanie Davis, Houston
A small, prudent step
I agree with The Post’s decision to discontinue endorsing presidential candidates. I am sure that, had the Editorial Board made an endorsement, I would have disagreed with it. But I’m used to that.
Apparently, many readers are not. That is, they expect and demand reporting and editorial stands consistent with their own political priors. This statement of position is a small victory for the journalistic “separation of church and state,” and I endorse it.
Personally, I think The Post’s coverage has turned leftward since Jeff Bezos acquired it. Whether or not this reflects Mr. Bezos’s own views, it does seem The Post has followed its readership in recent years. That is a mistake for any media organization, whether it be Fox News, NPR or MSNBC.
I urge readers to peruse the comments section of any New York Times article on Elon Musk. The number of readers demanding that he be promptly arrested might well explain why some others are willing to assume the same fate will befall the publishers of anti-Trump editorials. Does anyone care about free speech anymore?
I am not surprised such people are offended by The Post’s small, but prudent step toward sanity.
Adam Scales, Philadelphia
When journalistic and democratic values collide
The Post’s decision to not endorse a presidential candidate is understandable and consistent with the highest standards of journalism. But in the larger context of the national welfare at this moment, it is simply wrong.
Never before in American history has a major-party candidate announced his determination to undermine basic tenets of American democracy if elected. Every person and institution that wants to preserve these values and institutions has an obligation to oppose him.
If Donald Trump is elected, it will not be because The Post’s Editorial Board failed to endorse Kamala Harris. But the people involved in this decision will be forced to live for the rest of their lives with the knowledge that, in the name of their vaunted “independence,” they did not do all they could have done to protect American democracy. This might be their last chance to endorse a candidate in the American democratic republic. We should all regret that they failed to do so.
Kenneth Burton, Mitchellville, Maryland
About letters to the editor
The Post welcomes letters to the editor on any subject, especially those that expand upon the ideas raised by published pieces and those that raise valuable questions about The Post’s practices and choices. Letters should run no more than 400 words, be submitted only to the Post and must be published under your real name. Submit a letter.