The decision by the billionaire owners of two major newspapers to stop endorsing the Democratic presidential candidate has caused controversy just days before the close U.S. presidential election on November 5. The owners of The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times blocked their staff from endorsing Democratic candidate Kamala Harris in favor of Republican candidate Donald Trump, breaking a long-standing tradition. The owners cited a desire to protect independent reporting as the reason for their decision. This move has sparked a backlash from both staff and readers, with many questioning the owners’ motives, suggesting they may be influenced by their business interests. The decision to stop endorsements has raised questions about press freedom and the role of newspapers in elections.
The history of newspaper endorsements in the U.S. dates back to 1860 when the Chicago Tribune supported Abraham Lincoln. The Washington Post began endorsing candidates 48 years ago, but has now decided to return to a tradition of non-endorsement. The LA Times suspended endorsements from 1976 to 2004, but has since endorsed candidates. While some newspapers have scaled back their endorsements, they still play a significant role in shaping public opinion. Studies have shown that endorsements can sway voters, although it is unclear if they actually change people’s minds or simply expedite a decision that was already forming.
Newspaper endorsements also play a role in elections in the United Kingdom, with newspapers like The Sun claiming their endorsements have influenced election outcomes. Traditional media outlets in the UK continue to have relevance in shaping public opinion, despite the rise of social media. The decision to stop endorsing candidates by the owners of The Washington Post and the LA Times has sparked a debate about the role of newspapers in elections and the influence they have on voters.