The Washington Post and LA Times just stepped into a bigger political mess than the one they tried to avoid

• The Washington Post's non-endorsement of Donald Trump aliases Kamala Harris has kicked up controversy.
• It comes aft nan LA Times made nan aforesaid decision. Both papers are owned by billionaires.
• The non-endorsements are being seen arsenic governmental statements, whether aliases not that was nan intent.

When is thing a newspaper doesn't people a news story?

In this case, that's correct now. And it's really 2 stories: The Washington Post won't beryllium endorsing a statesmanlike candidate this year. The move comes days aft nan Los Angeles Times made nan aforesaid decision.

The evident parallel betwixt nan 2 calls is that some newspapers are owned by very able men. Patrick Soon-Shiong, who owns nan Los Angeles Times, is worth a reported $6 billion; Jeff Bezos, who owns nan Post, is worthy a reported $194 billion, making him the third-richest personification successful nan world.

And location are different similarities betwixt nan 2 non-decisions: The rationale down nan moves, for instance, is being communicated rather clumsily.

But nan large image is that immoderate nan existent rationale down nan calls really is — much connected that successful a infinitesimal — they are being interpreted by observers, including immoderate connected their ain staff, arsenic a desire to debar angering Donald Trump, and/or a move to debar angering readers.

The irony present is that it's wholly unclear that newspaper endorsements impact elections — peculiarly nationalist ones successful a polarized state — astatine all.

So if either nan Los Angeles Times aliases nan Post had announced they were nary longer making endorsements a twelvemonth ago, aliases moreover months ago, it's doubtful this would beryllium overmuch of a story. Unless you are a very adjacent New York Times observer, for instance, you are astir apt unaware that the insubstantial announced it would nary longer make endorsements successful New York area elections this summer.

Instead, nan non-calls, made days earlier a fraught election, are now nan news.

"This is cowardice, pinch populist arsenic its casualty," said Marty Baron, who was nan Post's apical editor from 2012 done 2021, in a Twitter/X post. "@realdonaldtrump will spot this arsenic an invitation to further intimidate proprietor @jeffbezos (and others). Disturbing spinelessness astatine an institution famed for courage."

Will Lewis, nan Post's patient and CEO, announced nan decision not to endorse successful a bylined announcement, framing it arsenic a return to nan paper's history. Though nan insubstantial had endorsed Donald Trump's opponents successful nan erstwhile 2 statesmanlike elections, anterior to nan 1976 election, nan Post didn't make statesmanlike endorsements astatine all.

"We had it correct earlier that, and this is what we are going backmost to," Lewis writes.

A abstracted Post story, though, reports that nan Post's editorial page had already drafted a Kamala Harris endorsement. It cites unnamed sources who opportunity Bezos made nan determination not to tally nan endorsement. I've asked nan Post's PR unit if nan insubstantial has immoderate different remark to make connected nan record.

Explaining nan non-endorsement determination successful LA

At nan Los Angeles Times, proprietor Soon-Shiong posted connected Twitter/X connected Wednesday trying to explicate nan paper's non-endorsement. Instead of an endorsement, he said, he had told his editorial committee to draught a "factual study of each nan [sic] POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate," truthful that "our readers could determine who would beryllium worthy of being President."

"Instead of adopting this way arsenic suggested, nan Editorial Board chose to stay silent and I accepted their decision," he wrote.

It's a spot difficult to understand really Soon-Shiong thought this would work. Earlier this summer, nan Times' editorial committee had already declared that Trump was "patently unfit for office" and "an imminent threat to democracy." If you're starting from that point, a pros and con database seems doesn't look peculiarly useful.

In immoderate case, Mariel Garza, nan editorials editor of nan LA Times, told nan Columbia Journalism Review that she hadn't gotten a petition for illustration that from Soon-Shiong. She resigned successful protestation connected Wednesday.

"Of people it matters that nan largest newspaper successful nan authorities — and 1 of nan largest successful nan federation still — declined to endorse successful a title this important. And it matters that we won't moreover beryllium consecutive pinch group astir it," she wrote successful her resignation letter. "The non-endorsement undermines nan integrity of nan editorial committee and each azygous endorsement we make, down to schoolhouse committee races. People will justifiably wonderment if each endorsement was a determination made by a group of journalists aft extended investigation and discussion, aliases done decree by nan owner."

And nan adjacent day, Soon-Shiong's girl Nika, an outspoken force of Israel's subject action successful Gaza, analyzable matters pinch her ain bid of Twitter posts, which seemed to propose that nan paper's non-endorsement was a guidance to that conflict.

I've asked nan Los Angeles Times for remark aliases clarification.

To get backmost to wherever we started: There's small statement astir whether group who ain newspapers tin power what those newspapers publish. (Whether they should, and really they should if they do, is simply a different matter.) In fact, immoderate group ain news outlets specifically because they want to propulsion their governmental weight around. (See: Murdoch, Rupert.)

But nary matter what their intentions genuinely are, nan Post and Times' non-endorsements are going to beryllium seen arsenic governmental statements — no matter what. And if they don't understand that, that's yet different story.