The Washington Post has decided to end its practice of endorsing presidential candidates- an ongoing tradition for decades- and announced this just days before the hotly contested US election. It has sparked fierce backlash among readers and staff.
Its CEO, William Lewis, defended the move as a return to journalistic impartiality, saying it empowers readers to form conclusions. Yet, some employees and subscribers see it as a dangerous abdication of responsibility.
The Washington Post ended a tradition that extends over decades by declaring on Wednesday that it would no longer endorse a candidate for United States president in elections coming up this fall-scrutiny that earned immediate withering criticism both from readers and employees inside.
The declaration, which the paper portrays as a reversion to its “roots,” has set off warnings regarding journalistic independence, the power of the press in maintaining a democratic system, and even whether ownership impacts or at least influences editorial choices.
The paper’s CEO wrote in a column on its website that it would withhold endorsement of a presidential candidate for the first time in 36 years. CEO William Lewis said that was to respect the “ability of readers to make up their own minds ” and adhere to the paper’s “core values.”
We understand this will be interpreted in multiple ways, from a tacit endorsement of one candidate to condemnation of another or even an abdication of responsibility.
That is bound to happen,” he said. “We don’t interpret it that way. We believe it is consonant with the values The Post has always espoused and what we look for in a leader.
