No, it’s not another Woodward-and-Bernstein, Watergate-style bombshell. But it’s almost as rare an event.

The Washington Post, for the first time in decades, has refused to endorse a candidate in a U.S. presidential election.

Absolutely! And that’s not all. They said they’re not going to do it again . . . not ever.

What am I going to do now? How will I know who to vote for?!!

But seriously . . .

I happen to think they’re doing exactly what a news outlet should be doing: reporting the news, not trying to create it. So, kudos to you, Washington Post. You’ve followed the campaigns, reported on the good, the bad and the weird as it has occurred, and offered analyses and editorial opinions. And now it’s time for us, the public, to make our own decisions. We don’t need investigative reporters, political analysts, editorial boards, or Jeff Bezos himself standing over our shoulders and telling us how to vote.

But what does this say about the state of our country — or, specifically our politicians — when the only way you can vote is by trying to choose between the lesser of two evils?

And it’s not just Donald Trump and Kamala Harris who have been judged and found wanting. It’s the sad fact that we couldn’t come up with anyone — in either party — better qualified.

Well, yes, him . . . but he’s dead.

Which appears to be precisely the reason the Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, made the decision that he did, despite opposition from many of the paper’s staff members.

The Post’s publisher, Will Lewis, issued the following announcement:

“The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.” [Hadas Gold and Brian Stelter, CNN, October 25, 2024.]

Lewis continued: “We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.” [Id.]

The paper’s staffers had been alerted by editorial page editor David Shipley that a “significant” announcement was forthcoming, and that there were likely to be “strong reactions” to it. And indeed there were.

Editor-at-large Robert Kagan said he has resigned over Bezos’ decision.

And former executive editor Marty Baron, who led the paper’s coverage of the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack, had this to say:

“This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty. Donald Trump will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner Bezos (and others). Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.” [Id.]

Looking at it from the point of view of editors whose job it is to . . . well . . . editorialize, I can see their point. But I disagree. Because I have felt for many years that the news media in general — print, broadcast and online — have stepped too far outside the acceptable parameters of news reporting, and have become too involved in influencing public opinion.

It’s a fine line, I know, and there are valid arguments on both sides. But that’s how I feel.

So, again . . . Bravo, Jeff Bezos. Let Donald Trump twist it any way he chooses. In standing up to him — in this citizen’s opinion, at least — you have once more shown that courage for which the Washington Post has indeed become famed.

And now I look forward to hearing what Woodward and Bernstein think.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
10/25/24