News publications choosing not to endorse political candidates doesn’t come without reason.
This year, a record number of major American news publications decided not to endorse a president in this year’s US election. Considering the polarization and divisiveness of this election, it was a shortsighted and damaging decision.
The silence of industry heavyweights like The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times sparked outrage among readers. The Post’s choice to abstain from endorsing a candidate led to widespread disappointment, anger, and a staggering 200,000 cancelled subscriptions—and rightly so.
In past election cycles, it was standard practice for most major publications to publish editorials endorsing presidential candidates. These endorsements didn’t merely suggest who readers should vote for—they represented a culmination of months of rigorous research, reflection, and reporting.
Political endorsements follow a different model and serve a different function than typical opinion columns. Unlike news stories, which strive for an impartial and objective delivery of facts, editorials reflect the values and perspectives of a publication’s editorial board. Even the most objective institutions are not devoid of opinions, and endorsing a candidate is a transparent way to acknowledge those values. It’s a public service, not an imposition.
Endorsements aren’t about telling people how to vote—a detail often misunderstood by readers. The unsigned byline ending the article indicates the opinions or conclusions aren’t from a single person but representative of their entire editorial board.
While it’s true endorsements are opinionated, they’re far from the typical unfiltered Internet s’ political takes you’d find in a Tweet or Instagram story. Instead, they’re extensively researched and written by journalists who have reviewed presidential platforms, interviews, and reports.
The decision by The Post and others to abstain from endorsements is more than just a missed opportunity—it’s a dereliction of duty. In a time when misinformation runs rampant, and public trust in institutions is waning, leaving readers without guidance is a disservice. By refusing to take a stance—whether that stance is endorsing one candidate or neither—these publications leave a vacuum, fueling uncertainty and cynicism.
Even more troubling is the role of ownership in these decisions. When billionaires like Jeff Bezos control major news outlets, their personal interests inevitably clash with journalistic independence. In The Post’s case, Bezos’s intervention reportedly led to the withdrawal of an endorsement for Kamala Harris, one that had already been prepared.
Bezos’s preoccupation with his public image over journalistic integrity exemplifies the dangers of concentrated media ownership. When endorsements are silenced to protect the interests of powerful individuals, it undermines the press’s role as a watchdog and betrays the trust of its readers.
Choosing not to endorse under the guise of political neutrality is a weak excuse. Inaction is its own form of statement, and in this case, it signals a refusal to engage in one of the most consequential elections in recent history.
With democracy at stake, and polarization at an all-time high, silence from powerful institutions like The Post and The Times is unacceptable. These publications have the platform, resources, and influence to shape the conversation. Instead, they chose to stay quiet.
This decision will have far-reaching implications outside the US. The Canadian federal election expected to take place next year on Oct. 20 will undoubtedly be influenced by similar dynamics of polarization and media responsibility. If Canadian news outlets follow the precedent set by their American counterparts, we could see a dangerous erosion of trust and civic engagement.
By refusing to endorse, publications risk normalizing apathy and setting a precedent which undermines their influence and responsibility in shaping democratic outcomes. Canada’s media landscape is watching closely, and the stakes for responsible journalism have never been higher.
The role of journalism is to inform, guide, and hold power able—not to cower behind a facade of neutrality. Endorsements are more than tradition; they’re a reflection of a publication’s responsibility to its readers. This year, many publications failed that responsibility.
—Journal Editorial Board
Tags
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].