Dozens of journalists threw public tantrums this week, including at least four who quit their jobs after the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post declined to publish overwrought endorsements of Kamala Harris that would have changed the minds of precisely zero voters. They’re behaving like a bunch of woke nerds after their professor refused to give out an extra homework assignment before the end of term.
Three members of the Times editorial board resigned earlier this week when the paper’s owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, chose not to publish their endorsement of Harris, a decision that “plunged [the] newspaper into an astonishing state of turmoil,” according to former CNN pundit and cat owner Oliver Darcy. Doing what comes naturally, the quitting journalists vented their anguish in obnoxiously self-righteous fashion.
“I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent,” said Mariel Garza, the Times editorials editor. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”
Editorial writer Robert Greene wrote a resignation letter expressing how “deeply disappointed” he was with the decision not to endorse Harris. “[I]t hurt particularly because one of the candidates, Donald Trump, has demonstrated such hostility to principles that are central to journalism—respect for the truth and reverence for democracy,” Greene explained.
Editorial board member Karin Klein announced her resignation in an angsty Facebook post. “What steams me is that a decision against an editorial at this point is actually a decision to do an editorial—a wordless one, a make-believe-invisible one that unfairly implies that she has grievous faults that somehow put her on a level with Donald Trump,” Klein wrote.
On Friday, Washington Post publisher Will Lewis announced after a “tense” staff meeting that the paper “will not be making an endorsement” for president in 2024 or “any future presidential election.” The Post has endorsed the Democratic candidate for president in every election cycle since 1976, with the exception of the 1988 race between Republican George H.W. Bush and Democrat Michael Dukakis, when the paper declined to endorse either candidate. The paper’s editorial board was preparing to endorse Harris, obviously.
Robert Kagan, the paper’s editor at large, resigned in protest. Kagan is the husband of Victoria Nuland, a former Biden administration official who hosted a fundraiser for Harris last month. Max Tani of Semafor reported that members of the Post opinion staff were “furious” at the decision, which was reportedly handed down by the paper’s owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. “Several are contemplating what action to take, ranging from resigning, quitting the board, or a statement,” Tani wrote. “‘If you don’t have the balls to own a newspaper, don’t,’ one Post opinion employee tells me.” Another (or perhaps the same) Post employee told CNN’s Brian Stelter that the non-endorsement was “an outrageous abdication of responsibility” and a form of tacit “consent to a fascist’s whims.”
A number of Post journalists vented publicly on social media. “Welp, that’s certainly a new type of October Surprise,” reporter Ashley Parker huffed. Karen Attiah, a Post columnist who has published just three columns since August, was far less coy in expressing her outrage. “Today has been an absolute stab in the back,” she wrote. “What an insult to those of us who have literally put our careers and lives on the line, to call out threats to human rights and democracy.”
Martin Baron, former executive editor of the Post, was equally impassioned, so to speak. “This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty. Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners),” he wrote. “History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”
Jennifer Rubin, the Post columnist who has established herself as one of the most hysterical anti-Trump personalities in mainstream media, has yet to weigh in. We apologize for any delay in relaying her response if and when it comes, as Rubin has unfortunately blocked this reporter on social media. It is not unreasonable, however, to predict that Rubin will quit her job in protest. Earlier this week, she celebrated Garza’s resignation from the Los Angeles Times and urged other Times staffers to follow suit. “Bravo. All respect,” Rubin wrote. “[A]nd where are the rest of them?”
Post employees were hardly the only partisan Democrats outraged by the decision not to endorse Harris. “As a DC native and lifelong subscriber to the Post, I’m disgusted,” wrote Susan Rice, the former adviser to Joe Biden and Barack Obama. “You have lost us.” Darcy, the former CNN pundit, couldn’t understand why any newspaper would decline to endorse a presidential candidate in this election. “On one side is an Adolf Hitler-praising autocratic-wannabe who has vowed to seek retribution against his perceived enemies, should he find himself back in the Oval Office,” he fumed. “On the other side is a relatively run-of-the-mill Democratic politician who respects the rule of law and American democratic order.”
Former MSNBC analyst Joan Walsh proudly declared that she had canceled her Post subscription, but balked when a commenter pointed out that a “more effective protest” would be refusing to buy stuff on Amazon. “Much harder but considering,” she replied.
Many journalists and partisan Democrats (to the extent there is a difference) are bound to view the non-endorsements from the Times and Post as a tacit repudiation of the Harris campaign’s closing argument: Vote for me because Donald Trump is Adolf Hitler. “[I]mpossible timing for this announcement to be read as a statement of principle,” Ben Smith, editor in chief of Semafor, wrote on Friday.
One could also view the decisions as desperate attempts by the publication’s owners to salvage their failing businesses. The Post lost half a million subscribers within two years after Trump left office, and posted a loss of $77 million in 2023. Some observers suggested the refusal to endorse was part of a deliberate scheme to reduce payroll expenses via mass resignations.
Bless their sad little hearts.
