Former Vice President Kamala Harris has openly criticized The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times for their decisions not to endorse a presidential candidate in the 2024 election. In her book ‘107 Days,’ Harris accused the owners of these influential publications of ‘pre-capitulation,’ suggesting they acted prematurely by avoiding a political stance. The Los Angeles Times, owned by Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, and The Washington Post, under the ownership of Jeff Bezos, both decided not to endorse any candidate, a decision that has sparked a significant amount of backlash and internal dissent.
The LA Times, a newspaper known for its strong editorial voice, made the decision to cease endorsing candidates after a lengthy deliberation. The paper’s editorials editor, Mariel Garza, resigned over what she believed was the owner’s decision not to endorse Harris, indicating the complexity and contentious nature of the situation. The Washington Post, historically a staunch supporter of Democratic candidates, made the unprecedented decision not to endorse any candidate in the 2024 election or any future presidential race, a move that has led to widespread discussions about the role of media in politics.
Harris also drew attention to the former editorial chief of the Washington Post, Marty Baron, who criticized the non-endorsement as ‘cowardice’ and warned of potential consequences for democracy. Harris highlighted this sentiment, suggesting that the decision reflects an institutional failure of courage and could undermine democratic processes. This incident has not only drawn criticism from Harris but has also raised broader questions about the influence and responsibility of the media in shaping political discourse.
Additionally, the decision to not endorse a candidate marked a departure from tradition for both publications, prompting reactions from various political figures and media analysts. The Washington Post, for instance, stated that its non-endorsement was a ‘statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds,’ a stance that has been met with skepticism and debate. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times emphasized the importance of competence in its decision-making process, a point that Harris found troubling in light of the circumstances.
As the 2024 election approaches, the non-endorsement decisions by these publications have become a point of contention in the broader political landscape. Harris’s commentary suggests a belief that such decisions have significant implications for the democratic process and the role of the press in political matters. This situation underscores the evolving dynamics of media influence and the challenges faced by institutions in navigating the complex terrain of political endorsements.