Washington Post regrets staying neutral

[audiophile]

No, it makes them more objective...and they probably figure Trump is going to win, so just makes look silly in week.

[zzand]

It is a sign of weakness, period.

[Honeyman]

USA Today has joined the chorus of papers that will not endorse a candidate. Pussies, all of them

100%

[Graham Wellington]

It is a sign of weakness, period.

Or, they realize that both candidates are absolutely shit and aren't willing to go out on a limb for either one.

[zzand]

That I will buy. It is totally lesser of two evils or a vote against this time. Why neither party can find a good candidate is beyond me.

[ZenithCKLW]

I voted third party in 2016 and I completely regret it. Upon repeated reflection since then, I am still trying to put that strategy's viability into perspective and defend that decision against what happened afterwards and where we are today. "I want to teach the major parties a lesson," which was my main justification, had absolutely no effect except expose us to chaos and horror.

I keep hearing the complaint of poor candidates. For those who ask why we have bad candidates, what are we looking for? In these divided times with so much information and reporting on anything and everything potentially political, are we looking for candidates who can communicate and deliver a platform that makes all of us perfectly happy? I understand wanting better, but with our current system of simple tug of war, is that expectation reasonable, or even possible?

For this specific election, to me, one choice is so obviously clear over the other, and to consider handing the election to the other (dangerous) candidate instead of the candidate much more aligned with me because it's not a perfect alignment is bewildering, especially after I feel such regret over that experience in 2016.

[Graham Wellington]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ost-trust/

Kudos to Bezos for acknowledging what so many at his paper have put blinders on to - that the public distrusts them more than ever before.

[Honeyman]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ost-trust/

If Bezos had written this 3-6 months ago, I might swallow it. The fact that they have endorsed candidates in other elections under his ownership, and he puts this drivel out know, just proves he's full of shit.

[Graham Wellington]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ost-trust/

If Bezos had written this 3-6 months ago, I might swallow it. The fact that they have endorsed candidates in other elections under his ownership, and he puts this drivel out know, just proves he's full of shit.

What benefit, to the paper or society, is it for them to endorse a candidate? Does anyone in modern times truly make a decision on who to vote for based on a newspaper endorsement?

I think he is finally understanding his paper is sliding into irrelevance due to their credibility issue, and blindly endorsing Harris does nothing to fix that.

[Honeyman]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ost-trust/

If Bezos had written this 3-6 months ago, I might swallow it. The fact that they have endorsed candidates in other elections under his ownership, and he puts this drivel out know, just proves he's full of shit.

What benefit, to the paper or society, is it for them to endorse a candidate? Does anyone in modern times truly make a decision on who to vote for based on a newspaper endorsement?

I think he is finally understanding his paper is sliding into irrelevance due to their credibility issue, and blindly endorsing Harris does nothing to fix that.

Their motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness". The fact that they choose THIS election to NOT endorse a candidate after 50 years seems beyond hypoctical to me.

[Turkeytop]

The fact that they choose THIS election to NOT endorse a candidate after 50 years seems beyond hypoctical to me.

"They" didn't choose not to endorse. It was their spineless owner who made that choice.

[Graham Wellington]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ost-trust/

If Bezos had written this 3-6 months ago, I might swallow it. The fact that they have endorsed candidates in other elections under his ownership, and he puts this drivel out know, just proves he's full of shit.

What benefit, to the paper or society, is it for them to endorse a candidate? Does anyone in modern times truly make a decision on who to vote for based on a newspaper endorsement?

I think he is finally understanding his paper is sliding into irrelevance due to their credibility issue, and blindly endorsing Harris does nothing to fix that.

Their motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness". The fact that they choose THIS election to NOT endorse a candidate after 50 years seems beyond hypoctical to me.

I guess I don't see not endorsing a candidate as a matter of Democracy. The bigger threat to their motto is their turn into a left wing activist organization instead of a respected news source.

[audiophile]

100%

[Turkeytop]

My favourite newspaper always endorses the Conservative party. I've never in my life voted Conservative. But I respect them for taking a position.

[Lester The Nightfly]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ost-trust/

If Bezos had written this 3-6 months ago, I might swallow it. The fact that they have endorsed candidates in other elections under his ownership, and he puts this drivel out know, just proves he's full of shit.

What benefit, to the paper or society, is it for them to endorse a candidate? Does anyone in modern times truly make a decision on who to vote for based on a newspaper endorsement?

I think he is finally understanding his paper is sliding into irrelevance due to their credibility issue, and blindly endorsing Harris does nothing to fix that.

Yeah, newspapers in general, and Bezos in particular, might have come to the realization that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Newspaper endorsements are something of an anachronism in a time where the owner of your local newspaper probably isn't even in your time zone. Perhaps there may have been some value when the publication reflected the community in which it serves but that ship sailed long ago. That along with the fact that you're going to have a pretty good idea that unless something is terribly amiss, the WaPo & NYT are going to endorse the kind of candidate they always have just like conservative news orgs are going to do the same. Not a lot of added value there folks.

To be clear, Bezos didn't buy the WaPo for lack of reading material, to be sure it was to influence decision-makers in DC. What he didn't bargain for was an outright vindictive President who cost his company several billion dollars because he didn't like what was written about him. Bezos has the receipts like few others.

All in all it seems like there isn't/wasn't much to gain politically or morally making an endorsement.

YMMV