Jessica Perez-Salinas, Staff Writer

On Oct. 25, the Washington Post released a statement announcing their decision not to endorse a presidential candidate in the 2024 presidential election. This decision will also apply to future presidential elections. Written by William Lewis, publisher and chief executive officer at the Post, the statement described the decision as an effort to go back to their roots and reestablish themselves as independent media. This decision has been met with strong criticism from within the paper and by readers.

Beginning with Jimmy Carter, the Post has endorsed a presidential candidate in every election. Now, the Post aims to establish itself as an unbiased and non-partisan news source. This is reflected in their statement, “Our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent.” This sentiment is common in journalism. Journalists have been known to refrain from announcing their vote as part of their code of ethics. However, many within and outside the newspaper believe that non-partisanship is not the deciding factor behind this decision.

Jeff Bezos is the founder of Amazon and Blue Origin, alongside being the Post’s owner. Blue Origin is an aerospace company that holds a 10 billion dollar contract with the United States government. This contract had been allegedly blocked by the Trump Administration for criticisms expressed in the Post towards Donald Trump. Many, including those in the company, believe the non-endorsement was made to keep good terms with Trump if he wins the election. 

This theory was further fueled by a TikTok video on the Post’s account which suggested that Bezos is afraid of retaliation if the Post endorses Kamala Harris. Bezos has argued against those claims and stated that this decision was to establish an unbiased press. Bezos has protected the Post from criticism under the Trump administration, however, this decision went against many of those at the Post. Multiple editors and staff at the Post have expressed criticism, stating that a non-endorsement is silence as Trump poses a looming threat to the free press.

It is important to note that the editorial section of the newspaper had an endorsement for Harris prepared, but stated that Jeff Bezos blocked them from releasing it.

David Hoffman, one of the staff that left the editorial board, talked about his decision to leave arguing that Trump presents the threat of autocracy telling CNN, “I don’t want the Post to be silent about it, and the fact that we’re not going to endorse is a degree of silence I can’t stand.” In an interview with CNN, former editor at large, Roger Kagan, talked about his decision to leave the Post. He further claimed that Trump will retaliate against the free press and that Bezos’ decision was made as a response to that. To him, Trump represents a threat to democracy. These claims are not completely unfounded. An article by  NPR states that Trump has threatened to retaliate against news sources and take control of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Since this change, the Post has lost an estimated 250,000 subscribers – roughly 10% of their total subscribers, according to sources through NPR and the AP. Prior to this, the Post had been experiencing positive growth in subscribers since the 2016 election. The Post has confirmed that they have lost a significant portion of subscribers but will not give out exact figures. It is difficult to predict how this will impact them in the long run. Some readers may return after the election, while others who have paid a yearly subscription still could be compelled to come back.

The Post has served as an important outlet for American media. They are one of the few major news sources that continues to provide high quality news and can conduct major investigations. In the digital age, the loss of revenue from these subscriptions is dire. News companies are struggling daily as they combat falling subscriptions due to the increased presence of the internet. The Post’s staff will also be affected by these decisions as this could provide the looming presence of layoffs. The impact will not be known for some time, but it does reveal a concerning image of the future of the free press.