Here are a few options for a rewrite of "Democracy’s Death in Darkness":

By Justin Peters
October 26, 2024, 5:55 AM

On Friday, the New York Times and other outlets reported a surprising development: for the first time in nearly 50 years, the Washington Post has decided not to endorse a candidate for the 2024 presidential election, and this decision will extend to all future elections as well. In a message to staff, the Post’s beleaguered publisher, Will Lewis, suggested this choice was made to uphold editorial independence, framing it as reflective of the values the paper has long espoused—namely, character, courage in service to American principles, respect for the rule of law, and a commitment to human freedom. However, former Post editor Marty Baron offered a starkly different interpretation, calling the move “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty,” in a post on X.

The timing of this announcement is particularly notable, coming just days after news broke that Patrick Soon-Shiong, the owner of the Los Angeles Times, had similarly barred his paper from endorsing a presidential candidate this year. In a letter published by the Columbia Journalism Review, Mariel Garza, who resigned as the Times’ editorials editor, argued that such a non-endorsement undermines the integrity of the editorial board and raises questions about the legitimacy of all endorsements made by the paper. Soon-Shiong defended his decision, stating that the editorial board was given the chance to draft a factual analysis of the policies of each candidate but chose silence instead.

These simultaneous non-endorsements reflect broader trends in the media landscape. Both the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times were “rescued” by wealthy owners who now seem primarily focused on their newspapers' financial performance rather than their journalistic integrity. Soon-Shiong, a biotech billionaire, made headlines by purchasing the Times from the publishing company then known as “Tronc” in 2018, but since 2023, the Times has laid off about a third of its newsroom due to significant financial losses. Similarly, Jeff Bezos has owned the Washington Post since 2013, but he has also overseen layoffs and expressed dissatisfaction with the paper’s profitability.

While both owners deserve credit for stepping in during critical moments, their initial goodwill appears to have waned. They now seem more concerned with reducing the challenges their newspapers pose to their lives and bank accounts. The task of running a credible news organization in today’s political climate, particularly under the scrutiny of a Trump-led Republican Party, is fraught with difficulties. News outlets are under relentless attack from critics who seek to delegitimize their reporting, claiming bias while ignoring the actual issues at hand. These allegations of “bias” serve to cloud the discourse and exhaust journalists, pressuring them to retreat from rigorous reporting.

Despite these challenges, the editorial side of journalism remains resilient. Reporters dedicated to fact-based reporting are often unmoved by criticisms from external forces. Unfortunately, those who control the purse strings may not share this fortitude. Executives often interpret “editorial neutrality” as a call to critique both political parties equally, fearing that a perceived anti-Trump stance might alienate some readers. The decisions to abstain from endorsements at the Times and the Post stemmed from corporate rather than editorial decisions, possibly influenced by a desire to navigate a contentious political landscape in anticipation of a close presidential race.

In practical terms, the loss of endorsements from these newspapers might not carry much weight. It’s no longer 1912, and most Americans have already formed their opinions about presidential candidates, often independent of newspaper recommendations. However, as Garza pointed out, this non-endorsement raises broader questions about the credibility of the entire editorial process. If an owner can dictate whether a newspaper endorses a presidential candidate, readers may rightfully wonder if other endorsements, such as those for local offices, have also been compromised. While no one relies solely on a newspaper for presidential guidance, many still value its input on local races.

Moreover, the irony of the Washington Post, known for its heroic journalistic legacy during the Watergate scandal, now succumbing to pressures that dilute its independence is striking. The paper once stood as a beacon of fearless journalism, prioritizing truth above all else. Yet, in today's climate, the potential backlash from endorsing a qualified candidate appears too high a cost to bear.