The announcement came out on Monday that USA Today was to be the third major news outlet within a week to formally avoid delivering an endorsement for the presidential election. This followed the same decision handed down at the Los Angeles Times and then the Washington Post. We have yet to see a cadre of emotional USA Today staffers revolting in hysterical fashion as has been witnessed as the other papers, but maybe we will see disgruntled correspondents taking to hotel lobbies, snatching the stacks of their paper and shredding them in dramatic protests.
The LA Times has been enduring a wave of staff resignations as a result of the non-endorsement decision, and then we have seen similar reactions at the Post. Given both of these papers have been delivering severe layoffs while spilling more red ink than Georgia Bulldogs boosters while tailgating on College GameDay, the executives might be wondering why they had not made the announcement sooner.
The hysterics have been amusing to watch. Previously unknown executive editors quitting in a huff are not going to move the needle with public opinion. At the Post it becomes even more oblivious, as their hyperactive protesting has led to unforeseen circumstances. As a result of these prominent(?) writers and reporters coming out to scorch their own outlet the Washington Post has been hit with mass cancellations by the readers, and now the staffers are begging them not to, as they will be the ones most affected.
Talk about not looking ahead at the ramifications of your actions:
My mom just told me she cancelled her subscription to The Washington Post. She reads every one of my stories. It was a heartbreaking call.
— Caroline Kitchener (@CAKitchener) October 26, 2024
I understand why she did it, but I asked her to reconsider. To anyone who has cancelled or is thinking about cancelling, here’s what I said:
Let’s look at all of these operatic outbursts with a sober eye – these are journalists losing their collective sanity because their news outlet took a neutral, non-committal position. In a national decision of this level of importance (I have heard this will be the “Most important vote of our lifetime”, for the 27th consecutive election) why is it considered mandatory that an outlet deliver an opinion? It runs contrary to the claims of these outlets operating in a non-partisan unbiased and neutral fashion – as empty as we know that promise to be.
One question: Where was this meltdown of journalists in 1988 when the Post decided for that election to avoid giving an endorsement? Somehow that was not a threat and journalism endured. But somehow this year the same move is regarded as the death knell of their profession. Calm down already.
But all of this is impotent bleating anyway. There is zero mystery how this news outlet leans politically. The Washington Post began issuing endorsements in the 1970s. It has NEVER endorsed a Republican in a presidential race. The last time the New York Times backed a GOP candidate was for Dwight D. Eisenhower.
At the LA Times we heard all manner of reactions, about how this was a threat to their editorial independence, or an attack on journalism in general, as well as posing a direct threat to our democracy, of course. Sure, the country is threatened because a paper that has made no hesitation in showing its support of Kamala is now shrouded in mystery in how it approaches this election.
At WaPo it was even more amusing. Nary a critical piece has been delivered, her political resume has been rewritten. We were told all about her cooking, they reported how her laugh was made into a song, and that her husband is…(shudder)...a sex symbol. Meanwhile, any hit that can be made on her opponent is done so with enthusiasm. Last week they were positively obsessed over Trump’s McDonald’s visit. This weekend they wrote over half a dozen pieces about the Puerto Rico joke at Sunday’s Trump rally in one 24-hour stretch. ,
Jeff Bezos, owner of WaPo, delivered a cold hard truth op-ed in his paper on Monday, where he laid out that the journalism industry in this country is the least trusted, lower than Congress. He said clearly that fixing the news industry is required and complaining about the lack of faith in their work is not a solution. I harbor severe doubts that many on his staff will heed his words, as they are too busy braying on social media and posturing in their mirrors.
Because that is an inherent problem with journalists today. Instead of working on getting better at their jobs they instead yell at their bosses, demanding to be catered to and coddled. The result will be more people than just their mothers walking away from their outlets.