There is nothing wrong with a news publication making an endorsement in a local, state or national election. And there is nothing wrong with a news publication choosing not to do so.
When a news publication chooses to make an endorsement — political or otherwise — it does more than simply express the opinion of its ownership. It seeks to influence readers to accept that opinion and to act on it or to encourage readers to vote a certain way.
News publications do not have inherent credibility. They need to earn it. That process takes time. Credibility and trust are earned through accurate, relevant and properly curated reporting and the sharing of information, opinions and views that are of interest and relevant to their readers.
Over time, many news and opinion sources become predictable. Their news reports favor particular political or cultural views; their opinion pieces tilt toward particular approaches to social and political issues; and their political endorsements are wholly unsurprising.
Nonetheless, the reports, opinions and endorsements have become part of the societal rhythm to which we have become accustomed.
So what happens when one or more of those “predictable” sources choose to do things differently? How are we supposed to react when a largely respected news and opinion source tells us two weeks before a very close and consequential presidential election that it decided not to endorse either candidate in the election?
That’s what the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post decided to do. Both major news organizations, each owned by billionaires, announced last week that their editorial boards would not make a presidential endorsement, despite each organization’s decades-long tradition of doing so.
We don’t question each organization’s right to make that decision. But a lot of ink has been spilled on speculation as to what drove those decisions and their consequences.
We are less concerned about the “subliminal” message of a non-endorsement. And we are also less focused on the reasons each organization’s owner made his decision. We are, however, focused on how each organization “announced” its decision.
The L.A. Times’ editorial board published a comprehensive list of political endorsements on local, state and federal elections affecting the Los Angeles area and was silent on the presidential race. The paper did not explain its decision not to endorse a presidential candidate, but noted at the bottom of its endorsements that “the editorial board endorses selectively, choosing the most consequential races in which to make recommendations.”
The Washington Post said more. According to its announcement, “The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election.” The Washington Post said that after decades of presidential endorsements it was “returning to its roots,” claiming to “support our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president.”
The Washington Post’s doublespeak is as baffling as it is lacking in credibility. The Washington Post apparently sees value in making recommendations to voters on everything in their lives except “the most consequential of American decisions.” What sense does that make?
At least the L.A. Times was smart enough not to say anything.
