The Washington Post says it will not endorse a candidate for president

Even if you don't want to endorse a candidate, you can still denounce one. A decision not to denounce Trump and all that he stands for can easily be viewed as tacit acceptance.

I see Bezos is drooling over the potential tax cuts he'd get in a fascist theocracy.

So they're cowards and idiots.

Better headline here: https://lemmy.world/post/21263675

So they endorse fascism.

In a column published on The Post’s website Friday, Post Publisher William Lewis described the decision as a return to the newspaper’s roots of non-endorsement. The Post only began regularly endorsing presidential candidates in 1976, when the paper endorsed Jimmy Carter “for understandable reasons at the time.”

Hmm.

On one hand, I frequently complain about media partisanship.

On the other hand, I care much more about bias -- especially willingness to distort a situation in the name of that advocacy, or mislead readers -- being inserted into articles. I really don't have a problem with a newspaper writing a single endorsement and clearly explaining their case for doing so. In fact, I suspect that it's probably got potential to be one of the more-articulate places to make a case for someone.

I ended a subscription to The Atlantic, years back, because I was tired of reading preaching for Obama in every couple of articles, years back. I didn't have a problem with Obama. However, I was exasperated over having political advocacy constantly being inserted into everything I read.

Speaking for myself and what media I'd rather read, that is what I'd rather have changed, rather than the presence of an endorsement, something which only really occurs once during election time and is clearly marked.