All Heck Breaks Loose At Major US Paper After Kamala Decision

[Logo]( [All Heck Breaks Loose At Major US Paper After Kamala Decision] [All Heck Breaks Loose At Major US Paper After Kamala Decision]( Wow! Didn't see this coming. The decision by The Washington Post to abstain from endorsing any presidential candidate in the 2024 election sparked a tidal wave of backlash from voices on the political Left, including influential media figures, former government officials, and even celebrities. For the first time in more than fifty years, The Post announced it would no longer take sides in the presidential race, marking a return to its pre-endorsement roots. The timing and implications of the move were scrutinized and criticized by high-profile figures across social media, who saw it as a signal of neutrality that, they argued, might embolden Donald Trump's campaign. In its announcement, The Post editorial board tried to frame the decision as a return to journalistic impartiality, stating, "We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates." While the editorial board acknowledged that readers might interpret the decision as a veiled endorsement or condemnation, they defended the choice as a commitment to neutrality, highlighting the inevitable complexities that come with a high-stakes election year. The announcement followed a similar decision from The Los Angeles Times, whose editorial board chair had resigned earlier in the week, reportedly over internal disagreement surrounding the endorsement policy. As speculation swirled about the factors influencing The Post's stance, attention quickly turned to its billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos. Critics like Marty Baron, The Post's former executive editor, alleged Bezos's personal interests-namely his space company, Blue Origin, which competes with Elon Musk's SpaceX for government contracts-might have played a role. The fear of antagonizing Trump in the event of his victory, they claimed, could have led to self-censorship. Unsurprisingly, this [rationale did little to satisfy progressive voices](. Many Washington Post journalists, commentators, and even Democratic legislators took to social media, calling out what they viewed as an act of journalistic cowardice. Karen Attiah, a prominent editor at The Post, expressed her outrage bluntly, tweeting that the decision felt like "an absolute stab in the back." Climate journalist Brianna Sacks noted the irony, pointing to The Post's Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the January 6 insurrection as evidence of the paper's traditionally bold editorial stance. Others, like Marty Baron, warned that The Post's decision sent a message of capitulation that could, in his view, open the door to further media intimidation. The criticism continued as former officials from the Obama administration, including Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice, framed The Post's stance as a failure of civic duty. Rhodes went so far as to compare the situation to the rise of authoritarian media in Russia, lamenting what he saw as a reflection of economic interests eclipsing democratic values. "You end up governed by self-interested autocrats when there is no value higher than personal profit," he wrote. Rhodes, along with a chorus of others, suggested the decision not only reflected a missed opportunity for principled journalism but also signaled a decay of American democracy itself. The backlash wasn't limited to Washington insiders. Hollywood voices, too, joined the chorus, invoking The Post's celebrated history of holding the powerful accountable. Actor Rob Reiner called the decision "reprehensible," pointing to the paper's legendary role in breaking the Pentagon Papers and Watergate scandals. Jon Cryer, another outspoken critic, even publicly canceled his Washington Post subscription, lamenting that "now is NOT the time" for neutrality. From a strategic standpoint, The Post may be taking a calculated risk to avoid alienating portions of its readership or endangering other ventures under Bezos's expansive portfolio. However, the backlash underscores a larger question about the role of major media in American democracy: Should influential outlets remain steadfast in expressing clear opinions on critical elections, or does neutrality allow for a more balanced form of journalism? The intensity of the reaction underscores how, for many, the 2024 election is viewed as a pivotal moment that leaves little room for neutrality in the press. [Trump Drops A New Tax Credit, No Wonder The Left Is Fuming] [Trump Drops A New Tax Credit, No Wonder The Left Is Fuming]( Dems jaws drop. [Dr. Phil Has Special Message for Trump Supporters] [Dr. Phil Has Special Message for Trump Supporters]( Holy smokes. [Scarborough Panic: Demands Harris Do A 180 On Policy] [Scarborough Panic: Demands Harris Do A 180 On Policy]( The guy had a panic attack. [Kamala Admits Key Trump Policy Is 'A Good Idea'] [Kamala Admits Key Trump Policy Is 'A Good Idea']( She just cut another ad for Trump. [Dems Hit Trump With Oct Surprise, But They Got Surprised Instead] [Dems Hit Trump With Oct Surprise, But They Got Surprised Instead]( Totally backfired. You are receiving this email because you opted in to Civil Deadline daily newsletter. Copyright 2024. Civil Deadline. All rights reserved. 30 N. Gould St, Suite 6911, Sheridan, WY 82801 [UNSUBSCRIBE]( | [VIEW IN BROWSER]( | [PRIVACY POLICY](