We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Democrats are incensed that certain left-leaning newspapers have decided not to endorse a presidential candidate this election.

It has even caused some in the newsrooms of those newspapers to rage quit as many liberals vowed online to cancel their subscriptions.

The most recent of these was Friday afternoon when The Washington Post, a traditionally liberal newspaper, announced it would no longer endorse presidential candidates.

“The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election,”  publisher and CEO of The Post, William Lewis, said. “We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.”

It should be mentioned that in its long history, The Washington Post has never endorsed a Republican presidential candidate.

The publisher cited examples from the 1960 presidential election and the presidential election of 1972 when the newspaper announced that it would not endorse a candidate, but strongly hinted that it supported the Democrat, which made the publisher’s final paragraphs all the more unbelievable.

“Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds,” the publisher said.

“Most of all, our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent. And that is what we are and will be,” he said.

The last time The Post did not endorse a candidate was in 1988, when it did not back Michael Dukakis or George H.W. Bush.

In the 1960 election, the editorial board explained its reasons for not endorsing a candidate, which the CEO said applies in many ways to the 2024 election.

“The Washington Post has not ‘endorsed’ either candidate in the presidential campaign. That is in our tradition and accords with our action in five of the last six elections. The unusual circumstances of the 1952 election led us to make an exception when we endorsed General Eisenhower prior to the nominating conventions and reiterated our endorsement during the campaign. In the light of hindsight we retain the view that the arguments for his nomination and election were compelling. But hindsight also has convinced us that it might have been wiser for an independent newspaper in the Nation’s Capital to have avoided formal endorsement,” it said.

“The election of 1960 is certainly as important as any held in this century. This newspaper is in no sense noncommittal about the challenges that face the country. As our readers will be aware, we have attempted to make clear in editorials our conviction that most of the time one of the two candidates has shown a deeper understanding of the issues and a larger capacity for leadership,” the board said.

“We nevertheless adhere to our tradition of non-endorsement in this presidential election. We have said and will continue to say, as reasonably and candidly as we know how, what we believe about the emerging issues of the campaign. We have sought to arrive at our opinions as fairly as possible, with the guidance of our own principles of independence but free of commitment to any party or candidate,” it said.

And those who oppose former President Donald Trump were furious.

“After 5 years, I have canceled my subscription to the Washington Post,” author Stephen King said on X.

“Wanna post your Post subscription cancellations? (Cliche warning) I’ll start,” Keith Olbermann said before sharing a photo of his cancelation to the newspaper.

“I just canceled my subscription to @washingtonpost. You should too,” author Joan Walsh announced.

“Just canceled the newspaper that told us ‘Democracy Dies In Darkness,’” actor Mark Hamill, who played Luke Skywalker in the “Star Wars” franchise, said.

The post Dems Rage After Washington Post Announces No Presidential Endorsement appeared first on Conservative Brief.