New York, NY — In an astonishing backlash, the Washington Post has seen over 250,000 subscribers cut ties with the publication after it announced a departure from its long-standing tradition of presidential endorsements. Last Friday, Will Lewis, publisher of the Post, informed readers that the newspaper would not endorse a candidate in the upcoming election. The response from readers was swift and emphatic, resulting in a cascade of cancellations, totaling approximately 10% of its digital subscriber base by Tuesday, as confirmed by internal reports and two individuals with knowledge of the subscriber metrics.
The decision came at a critical point in the election cycle, with just under two weeks remaining before Election Day. Readers, accustomed to decades of the Post’s guiding endorsements, appeared stunned by the sudden shift. Public outcry was immediate and vocal, with prominent former Post staffers and media figures joining readers on social media to denounce the change. Marty Baron, a former executive editor, labeled the decision “cowardly” and “craven,” suggesting it was an attempt by billionaire owner Jeff Bezos to dodge potential backlash from a Trump administration, should he win re-election. According to a source familiar with the editorial board’s discussions, a draft endorsement for Harris was reportedly in place before being blocked by Bezos himself.
This decision was not made in isolation. In an eerily similar move, the Los Angeles Times also withdrew its endorsement of Harris, allegedly under pressure from its own billionaire owner. While neither publication has directly confirmed these speculations, the cancellations at the Post serve as an unmistakable indication of reader disappointment, if not distrust.
Adding fuel to the fire, the controversy around the Washington Post’s editorial independence has touched off deeper issues related to Bezos’s outside ventures, which include Amazon and Blue Origin — both of which maintain extensive federal contracts. In an attempt to defuse the situation, Bezos released an op-ed this week, acknowledging that the timing of the decision had led to “unnecessary speculation” but asserting that it was rooted in editorial independence rather than business interests. “Had we planned this decision sooner, further from the election,” Bezos wrote, “we might have avoided any perception of bias.”
Bezos also denied any connection between the endorsement decision and his recent communications with Trump. Over the summer, he reached out to Trump after the former president narrowly survived an assassination attempt, praising him for his resilience under fire. This call has fueled rumors that Bezos’s decision to avoid endorsing Harris might be connected to possible fears of repercussions under a second Trump administration.
Political pundits are also weighing in on the debacle. Bill Grueskin, a Columbia Journalism professor, remarked to CNN that fears of retribution from a future Trump administration are likely behind these high-profile endorsement withdrawals. “If either the Post or the Times had published endorsements, no matter how nuanced, the reaction would have been subdued compared to the uproar over this omission,” he commented. This choice, he argues, is a “self-own of historic proportions,” pointing to a media landscape where readers demand transparency.
The story took another turn when Trump, at a North Carolina rally, took the Washington Post’s and Los Angeles Times’s decisions as tacit endorsements of his candidacy, commenting, “They always endorse Democrats, but this time they’re staying silent. They know I’m the right choice, and they know they can’t back this Democrat.” Trump’s comments are likely to fan the flames of an already blazing controversy.
Bezos’s op-ed tried to address both these public and internal concerns, asserting that the decision to suspend presidential endorsements was aimed at fortifying the Post’s independence. However, the Washington Post’s subscriber exodus and editorial board resignations reflect a deeply divided audience. Three editorial board members have already stepped down over the matter, a move that signifies the paper’s own internal divisions.
Grueskin noted the financial toll this decision may take, despite Bezos’s vast wealth. “It’s not just lost revenue; it’s a foundational loss of trust and a weakening of the business model,” he said. The Washington Post’s traditionally liberal readership appears unwilling to accept editorial changes they feel undermine journalistic integrity. Bezos’s final appeal in the op-ed emphasized that “ending endorsements will reduce the appearance of bias,” but it may take far more to win back those who have already walked away.
