Let me share a few quick thoughts on newspaper endorsements. This comes after we learned that first the LA Times and now the Washington Post will break with tradition and not endorse a presidential candidate this year.
First, I’m not sure there’s any point these days in newspapers endorsing political candidates, especially presidential candidates. I don’t think much about it either way. But, especially in the case of the Post, this is a bad and cowardly development. We can’t know for certain what went into these decisions. But the most obvious explanation is that they have billionaire owners who, especially in the case of Jeff Bezos, have other business interests which are vulnerable to adverse regulatory and contracting decisions as well as government harassment of other kinds. Those are very real threats and ones that a lawless president has a lot of latitude to exact without much if any real prospect of redress. It’s not a habeas situation. These are just discretionary decisions in most cases.
The calculus is straightforward. If Harris wins the election, it doesn’t matter. Democratic administrations don’t play that way. Donald Trump’s do. We don’t have to predict how a future Trump administration will act. We have plenty of evidence from the last one. Just ask AT&T and CNN. At a minimum, having Trump win after endorsing Harris invites a very unfriendly regulatory environment — and probably a lot worse than that. This is a bad sign well in advance of whatever happens on November 5th. And it’s an important reminder that without actually doing anything, he threatens, he sends a message, and the message is received.
I will say again, we can’t know for a certainty why the Post is choosing not to endorse anyone this year. But, seriously, what other possible explanation could there be? They’re afraid of antagonizing the Trump supporters in their reader base? Does that count for the LA Times too? Seriously, it doesn’t pass the laugh test. We know what’s going on here.
