Washington Post Columnists in a Fury Because Newspaper Didn't Endorse

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

Washington Post columnists have come out against the newspaper’s decision not to endorse a presidential candidate in the upcoming election.

The fallout from this move is continuing to make its way through social media, with leftists complaining about their favorite propaganda outlet not doing its job. Many staffers have taken issue with the decision, which was made by billionaire Jeff Bezos, who owns the news outlet.

Of course, they were not upset that the newspaper did not endorse any candidate. They were specifically mad that it would not publicly support Vice President Kamala Harris, who needs all the help she can get.

Democrats on social media proudly announced that they were canceling their subscriptions in protest. Several opinion columnists took to the digital pages of The Post to make their dissatisfaction known.

Alexandra Petri, the paper’s humor columnist, indicated that since it is not supporting Harris, she would do so herself. So bold. So brave, right?

“If I were the paper, I would be a little embarrassed that it has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to make our presidential endorsement,” Petri wrote.

Petri then parroted a line from many on the left when she argued that “this is not an election for sitting out.”

Ruth Marcus, a seasoned columnist and former member of The Post’s editorial board, expressed her profound disappointment at the decision. Marcus, who has been with the outlet for four decades, characterized the move as “the wrong choice at the worst possible time.”

Marcus suggested that an endorsement from The Post would have served as a critical warning against a second term for the Orange Man What Is Bad™. She referred to previous editorials that labeled former President Donald Trump as “the worst president of modern times” and argued that “a vibrant newspaper can survive and even flourish without making endorsements” but insisted that this is not the election to make this particular move.

Karen Tumulty, another longtime columnist for The Post, echoed these sentiments. She criticized the timing of the decision, which she called “an insult to our colleagues throughout this newspaper and to our readers.”

Tumulty insisted that the editorial board’s job is to essentially take sides when it comes to politics. “Editorial boards exist to make judgments and to speak for the institution” and slammed the newspaper for making its announcement only 11 days before the election.

The backlash from these columnists and other prominent leftists illustrates a broader sentiment that news outlets like The Washington Post should not exist to inform their audiences about the news of the day, but to influence the public into supporting a progressive agenda. This supposed duty on the part of newspapers and other forms of media is expected to be absolute, according to these individuals.

The Washington Post has not hidden its political preferences, and everyone knows the outlet is firmly behind Harris. Yet, their refusal to publicly endorse the vice president still prompted criticism from its readers and staff. In their view, the press should serve as a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party and the authoritarian left – nothing more and nothing less.