Staff Reports
The newspapers of America, those fine purveyors of ink on paper, have long experienced a tug-of-war between their owners’ whims and the desires of their readers. Some giants in the industry, like William Randolph Hearst and Dorothy Schiff, exemplified this trend by pushing their own agendas, often disregarding the opinions of their staff and the people flipping through their pages. Now, in a curious twist that would make the likes of Hearst smirk, three major publications—The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today—have decided to forgo endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris, a decision that has left many of their left-leaning readers—and employees—grumbling.
To say the media’s credibility is at a low point would be an understatement. A recent Gallup poll revealed that only 31 percent of Americans have faith in the accuracy and impartiality of mainstream news sources. This unprecedented mistrust is hardly new; it has skyrocketed from a mere 4 percent back in 1976. Unsurprisingly, the choice to sit on the fence regarding Harris’s candidacy has provided conservatives plenty of ammunition to point out that, when the rubber meets the road, even the far-left acknowledges the vice president might not quite be cut out for the highest office in the land.
Newspaper owners' not endorsing a candidate – an unpopular – but likely necessary decision https://t.co/2baHblSfme
— Just the News (@JustTheNews) October 30, 2024
Jeff Bezos, the billionaire owner of The Washington Post, shared the newsroom’s woes regarding subscriber trust. He lamented that something just isn’t working—though many would argue he could use a compass to find his way back to journalistic integrity. Notably, Bezos made the point that a voting machine must not only tally the votes correctly but also instill confidence in the voters that the machine works, a parallel he drew to the functioning of newspapers. The irony is not lost; while he blocks the endorsement of Harris, subscriptions are plummeting, with around 200,000 readers deciding they’ve had enough of Bezos’s brand of “journalism.”
To add to the chaos, the departures of several journalists from these papers suggest a crisis of morale, especially for an editorial board that, despite all its internal conflicts, should stick to the mission of covering events without bias. It makes one wonder if the bold writers who imagined their voices echoed the cries of the oppressed have, in fact, turned into the very thing they claim to fight—a monolithic echo chamber of liberalism that drives conservatives to source their news elsewhere.
As the dust settles, it seems that amidst the ruckus, the Los Angeles Times has its own issues stemming from billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong. While he played ringmaster to the controversy of Harris’s potential endorsement, his daughter declared that the vice president’s pro-Israel stance was off-putting enough to merit not being endorsed. The back-and-forth antics reek of desperation from those who should be providing unbiased news, leading to a questioning of their very purpose and role in today’s political landscape.
With America split down the middle, USA Today’s decision to opt out of endorsements entirely is a less explosive but equally telling sign of a media landscape unsure of itself. They’ve only officially backed one presidential candidate in their four-decade history—that being Joe Biden in the last election—proving they’ve mastered the art of playing it safe. In this polarized epoch, the true nature of journalism is being re-evaluated. Between protests against their own editorial policies and questionable endorsements, these once-stalwart newspapers find themselves today trapped in a precarious balancing act, questioning whether catering to one segment of their audience is worth the risk of alienating another.
