Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos has defended the newspaper’s decision not to endorse a U.S. presidential candidate after a report that more than 200,000 people had canceled their digital subscriptions following the move.
What Was The Decision?
The decision blocked an endorsement of Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris, the National Public Radio report said.
Several people wrote messages on the newspaper’s website and criticized Bezos, the billionaire founder of Amazon.com and rocket company Blue Origin.
Credibility Of Washington Post And Other Newspapers
In an opinion piece late on Monday, Bezos said “Most people believe the media is biased” and the Washington Post and other newspapers needed to boost their credibility.
No candidate was informed or consulted about the decision and that there was “no quid pro quo”, Bezos said.
He added that there was no connection between the decision and a meeting between Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Blue Origin’s CEO on the same day.
“Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election,” Bezos wrote.
“What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”
Subscription Cancellations
The subscription cancellations as of midday represented about eight per cent of the paper’s paid circulation of 2.5 million subscribers.
These includes print as well, reported NPR.
The Washington Post declined to comment on the report when contacted by Reuters.
William Lewis, the Washington Post’s publisher and CEO, said the newspaper would not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate either in the November 5 election or any future presidential election.
Returning To Our Roots
“We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” Lewis wrote.
“The Washington Post’s decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake,” wrote 20 columnists in an opinion piece on the Post’s website, adding that it “represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love.”
