With the US Presidential Elections around the corner, the tradition of media houses endorsing presidential candidates continues into 2024, with some notable outlets outright refusing to endorse candidates, or withdrawing endorsements entirely.

The Washington Post newspaper, owned by Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos, announced on October 25 that it would endorse neither Democrat Kamala Harris nor Republican Donald Trump in the upcoming election.

CEO William Lewis said this was a return “to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates”. However, the editorial board has endorsed candidates for much of the last four decades — all of them Democrats — before deciding to stay on the sidelines in one of the most polarising elections in US history.

Bezos wrote a piece in The Washington Post on October 28, stating that the paper’s choice against endorsing candidates aims to regain the public’s trust in mass media, which he claims has fallen to bias.

“Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose,” Bezos writes. “What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias … ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”

However, the decision prompted scathing criticism from within the paper, with a senior editor resigning and around 2,000 readers cancelling their subscriptions, Semafor reports. “People are shocked, furious, surprised,” said an editorial board member.

On the other hand, The Los Angeles Times published an endorsement for the 2024 elections, but notably omitted its endorsement for the Presidential Race. The paper cancelled its endorsement of Harris last week on the instructions of billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong.

“The Editorial Board was provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the positive and negative policies by each candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation,” Soon-Shiong wrote on social media, according to US broadcaster CNN.

The decision not to endorse Harris triggered a wave of resignations, including that of The LA Times’ editorial board leader Mariel Garza. “I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent,” Garza said in an interview with The Columbia Journalism Review.

What are endorsements?

Newspapers publish editorial pieces on both national and state-level candidates to provide informed guidance based on analyses of candidates to their readers, according to Al Jazeera.

Although these endorsements act as an indicator of the candidates’ quality, they also expose the ideological leanings of the publication. In her interview, Garza mentioned that The LA Times is “a very liberal paper” and that “our readers, for the most part, are Harris supporters”.

How long have newspapers endorsed candidates?

Qatari state-run broadcaster Al Jazeera says that the tradition of presidential endorsements goes as far back as 1860, when The Chicago Tribune endorsed Abraham Lincoln.

According to a piece by FiveThirtyEight, a website operated by the ABC news network that analyses opinion polls and politics, newspapers’ editorial pages have contained endorsements for presidential candidates “for over a century”.

The site gives the example of a New York Times editorial page also throwing its hat behind Lincoln in 1860. “Mr Lincoln, of Illinois, familiarly known as ‘Old Abe,’ age 51, height six feet seven, by profession Rail-Splitter,” read the endorsement. “The thing seems pretty sure. Since the Pennsylvania election, everybody concedes it.”

Al Jazeera adds that The Washington Post began endorsing presidential candidates 48 years ago when it publicly supported Democrat Jimmy Carter. Similarly, The LA Times suspended presidential endorsements from 1976 to 2004, eventually backing Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 and continuing the practice since.

Newspaper endorsements

The New York Times

The New York Times editorial board endorsed Harris on September 30, calling the Democrat “the only patriotic choice for president” in the race against Trump.

“This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election,” the piece read.

NYT cites Trump’s “many criminal charges, his advancing age, his fundamental lack of interest in policy and his increasingly bizarre cast of associates” as reasons why readers should vote for Harris. The board also warns that a second Trump term could be “much more damaging and divisive than the first”.

“Kamala Harris is the only choice,” the piece concludes.

The New York Post

The New York Post, a conservative tabloid owned by the Murdoch family, endorsed Trump for president on October 25, hailing him as “the clear choice for a better future”.

The piece states that Americans must choose secure borders, safer cities and “common-sense policies … on school choice, gender surgery and trans athletes playing in female sports”, among others. The NY Post then claims Donald Trump is the only candidate who can provide these.

“Today, Trump exhibits the same strength and vigor as he did in 2016, despite the unprecedented and disgraceful weaponization of the justice system against him, two assassination attempts and the all-too-familiar constant barrage of hysterical media attacks on him,” the piece adds.

It also praises Trump for “[having] treated Iran like the terror sponsor it is”, citing his withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2015 and the assassination of Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani.

The Washington Times

A conservative daily newspaper, The Washington Times published an endorsement of Trump on September 27, calling him “the clear choice” in the presidential race.

“The party that once represented the anti-war left has evolved into a cheerleader for endless foreign conflict,” the piece reads, referring to the Democratic Party.

By contrast, it says that Trump “spent his career building things and employing people” adding that he “ran for the White House in 2016 not to enrich himself … but to give back to his country”.

The Washington Times lauds Trump’s refusal to “do the bidding of the machine”, adding that he has also taken “a bullet to the head” for his campaign. “With America’s prosperity on the line, we can’t afford to elect another machine candidate,” the paper writes.

The Boston Globe

Daily newspaper The Boston Globe endorsed Harris’ “vision of hope and aspiration against former president Donald Trump’s message of fear and loathing” on October 18.

The piece slams the Republican hopeful and former president for having “routinely denigrated the law … undermined faith in the electoral system … [and] befriended autocratic overseas” among other criticisms.

“Where Trump relentlessly demonizes migrants, women, the weak, and the vulnerable … Harris promotes the nation’s better angels,” The Globe writes. “His message is one of fear and loathing. Hers is one of unity, hope, and aspiration. Is the choice between those not clear?”

The Globe also criticises Trump’s proposed economic policies if re-elected, warning that raising tariffs on all imported goods - a key promise of his campaign - it will “likely to trigger a global trade war, cause American job losses, and hurt consumers by raising prices on most goods”.

“Manufacturing jobs are at their highest level in a decade, aided by two signature Biden initiatives … that injected billions of dollars into American industry,” the paper writes.

“Consider … the candidate who has pledged to be “a president who leads and listens; who is realistic, practical and has common sense,” as Harris told the nation in August,” says The Globe.

The Jerusalem Post

Despite writing, “Israel is one of the many locations around the world whose future may be heavily linked to whoever is next to helm the White House,” Israeli daily The Jerusalem Post did not endorse either presidential candidate, instead urging Americans to “go out and vote” in its October 11 endorsement piece.

It calls the US elections “the most important democratic event in the world”, lauding the US for allowing citizens to vote from overseas - a practice absent in Israel.

However, The Post notes that American elections are affected by low voter turnout, writing: “Around 20pc of all US elections had voter turnouts of under 50pc of all eligible voters, with numbers peaking in the mid-1800s but sharply declining throughout the 20th century.

“In other words, in the elections to decide the leader of the free world … only a slight majority of eligible voters actually vote,” writes the paper.

“Without endorsing any candidate, we are encouraging all Americans – including the thousands in Israel – to vote in November,” The Post writes.

The Guardian

British daily The Guardian endorsed Harris in an editorial published on October 23, terming her campaign “a masterclass in political jujitsu, deftly flipping Mr Trump’s perceived strengths into glaring weaknesses”.

The endorsement also acts a criticism of the Trump administration and the Republican nominee in general. “His history of dishonesty, hypocrisy and greed makes him wholly unfit for the office,” The Guardian writes.

“A second Trump term would erode the rule of law, diminish America’s global standing and deepen racial and cultural divides,” the paper adds.

On the other hand, the paper hails Harris’ candidacy as “historic”, stating that if she were to win, “she would be the first woman, and the first woman of color, to be president”. It also praises her media savvy appearance, her performance in her sole televised debate and gaining support from demographics which President Biden lost favour with.

“This election is a leap of faith in Ms Harris, who offers a sense of possibility for the future, while Mr Trump clings to a reactionary past.”

Notably, The Guardian highlights that Harris’ stance on Israel’s military offensive in Gaza and alleged war crimes has “disappointed those who have urged her to take a stand”.

“Downplaying war crimes, as arms flow to Israel, has already harmed Democratic chances in key swing states like Michigan,” The Guardian writes.

The Economist

London-based magazine The Economist published a piece on October 31 warning that a second Trump term comes with “unacceptable risks”, adding that if the publication had a vote, it “would cast it for Kamala Harris”.

The magazine states that some people may vote for Trump as a “calculated risk”, however it warns that the risk is far too high. “By making Mr Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace,” The Economist writes.

The magazine adds: “We cannot quantify the chance that something will go badly wrong: nobody can. But we believe voters who minimise it are deluding themselves.”

Additionally, The Economist states that the global context surrounding the first Trump administration and a potential second are vastly different. Between 2017 and 2021, the world was more peaceful, with conflicts erupting from Ukraine to Gaza after 2022.

“These conflagrations would test Mr Trump in a way that his first term did not,” the magazine writes. “His glib promises to bring peace to Ukraine in a day, and his open-ended encouragement of Israel’s offensives, are not reassuring. Even worse is his contempt for alliances.”

Meanwhile, despite being an “underwhelming machine politician” - a reference to her being interchangeable with any other candidate - The Economist writes that Harris stands for stability, highlighting that while she is not an exceptional candidate, readers “cannot imagine her bringing about a catastrophe”.

“She has ordinary shortcomings, none of them disqualifying,” the magazine writes, adding that some of her policies, including regulation and further taxing wealth-creation will likely alienate potential Republican voters.

Header Image: Collage showing US presidential candidates Donald Trump (left) and Kamala Harris (right). — AFP