The presidential endorsements you won’t read

If you are looking for a newspaper endorsement to help you decide how to vote in tomorrow’s presidential election, you won’t find one in the Democrat and Chronicle, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, or many other U.S. papers.

Gannett, the D&C’s parent company, has stopped presidential endorsements by its papers, a decision reportedly made last year but stated publicly only in recent days. That disclosure came after the owners of the Post (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos) and L.A. Times (medical researcher and investor Patrick Soon-Shiong) decided their papers would not endorse either candidate in this year’s race for the White House—even though the opinion staffers at the two papers had drafted editorials urging voters to elect Harris.

The Post decision sparked a huge blowback. Bezos has been excoriated in the media, key editorial staffers have quit, nearly two dozen Post columnists signed a joint letter calling the decision “a terrible mistake,” and the newspaper itself reported that at least 250,000 readers have canceled their subscriptions.

Bezos defended his decision in a note to Post readers, saying it was a necessary step to begin restoring trust in journalists. He argued that presidential endorsements “create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.” The fact that it came only days before the election was due to “inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.”

His note has not silenced the critics. Marty Baron, retired executive editor of the Post who ran the paper under Bezos and whose book, “Collision of Power: Trump, Bezos and the Washington Post,” cast Bezos’ ownership of the paper in a positive light, posted on X: “This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty. @realdonaldtrump will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner @jeffbezos (and others). Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

The Post, the L.A. Times and the Gannett papers are part of an accelerating trend. The tradition of presidential endorsements by newspaper dates at least to the 19^th century; for much of that time, publishers overwhelmingly supported Republican candidates. While the Post and others have not made endorsements in every presidential election, 92 of the nation’s top 100 papers endorsed one of the two major-party candidates in 2008. By 2020, that number had fallen to 54.

Why newspapers have moved away from presidential endorsements is less clear. Some contend that endorsement editorials sway few voters, especially in an era of highly polarized elections. Others point to newspapers’ financial woes, saying owners are loath to alienate any of their dwindling ranks of readers. Some papers have largely dropped editorials or even eliminated their opinion pages, unwilling or unable to staff them.

Robert Greene, a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial writer for the L.A. Times for 18 years who quit the paper after its owner overruled the editorial department’s plan to endorse Harris (the editorials editor also resigned), says “one can reasonably question the value of endorsements.” Nonetheless, he wrote in The Atlantic a few days ago, they serve an important purpose: “Endorsements and other editorials are a lot like a lawyer’s closing argument to a jury after a long trial with numerous witnesses and exhibits. They remind readers of everything they’ve read, seen, and heard, and then they assemble it all in a persuasive presentation. They make a case. And then readers decide.”

So, what about the Rochester Beacon? While not a newspaper in the traditional sense, the Beacon covers the Rochester region, publishing news and opinion pieces—but not political endorsements or other editorials. Why not?

There are two basic reasons. First, the Beacon as an organization is nonpartisan and nonideological; we publish opinion grounded in facts—by guest contributors and, occasionally, by our own writers, whose own political views are quite diverse. But we don’t have an editorial board or institutional viewpoint expressed through editorials.

The second reason is also foundational: We don’t endorse political candidates because we can’t. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the Beacon cannot engage in activity on behalf of a candidate for political office; as IRS rules state unambiguously, “written or oral endorsement of a candidate is strictly forbidden.”

Instead of expressing an institutional point of view, we have tried to create for the Rochester community a forum where thoughtful discussion and debate can thrive. On the news side, we strive to be fair and balanced in our coverage of local politics and government.

While the Beacon’s founders and contributing journalists may disagree on a number of political issues, belief in democracy and the importance of election integrity is part of our common ground. I think we also share a belief that voters should make informed decisions (Geoff Rosenberger’s recent guest opinion piece provided a long list of objective information sources that voters can use to “separate political fact from fiction”). And in reaching those decisions, they should weigh candidates’ policy positions, personal background, and character—especially in an election for the nation’s highest office.

In “The Soul of America,” the historian Jon Meacham writes that “the character of the president is critical.” In his view, “character manifests itself in temperament.” Others might cite qualities such as honesty, empathy, courage to name a few. Budget data and IRS statistics are not particularly helpful here. Rather, it’s often the skilled, dogged work by veteran journalists that gives voters the information and insights they need to assess the character of political candidates.

Which is why I think those 250,000 Washington Post readers—and thousands of L.A. Times subscribers like them—have made the wrong decision. The reporters and editors in the newsrooms at those papers had no role in the decisions to end presidential endorsements, but canceled subscriptions will make their jobs harder—assuming they don’t lose their jobs in cost-cutting moves.

As Baron told the New Yorker, “I understand (readers’) desire to register a protest. I certainly understand where that comes from. But we need strong news organizations in this country, and we don’t have enough of them.”

That will be true no matter how tomorrow’s election turns out.

Paul Ericson is Rochester Beacon executive editor. The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. Submissions to the Letters page should be sent to [email protected]. 

Our Nonprofit Newsroom Needs Your Support

The Rochester Beacon’s journalists are dedicated to bringing you high-quality local news and analysis. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit news outlet, we rely on donations from the community to stay paywall-free. Make a tax-deductible contribution today to support our hardworking journalists—and NewsMatch will double your donation.