Bezos Defends Non-Endorsement of Harris Amid Backlash at The Washington Post

In a rare public statement, Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, addressed the uproar following his decision to withhold the newspaper's endorsement in the presidential race. In an op-ed published by the Post, Bezos argued that presidential endorsements do not sway undecided voters, asserting, 'No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, 'I'm going with Newspaper A's endorsement.'

This statement followed the resignation of three editorial board members and thousands of subscription cancellations. Prominent staffers expressed their frustration over the handling of the situation, raising concerns about the abrupt decision. Critics, including former Post executive editor Marty Baron, labeled the choice “craven” and “cowardly,” suggesting it was an attempt to appease former President Donald Trump.

Bezos acknowledged the timing of the decision as inadequate, noting that it should have been made earlier. Despite speculation linking his decision to a meeting between Trump and Blue Origin executives, he emphasized that there was no advance knowledge of the meeting and denied any connection to the endorsement decision. “There is no quid pro quo of any kind,” he stated.

While recognizing the appearance of conflict due to his wealth and business interests, Bezos defended his track record of non-interference with the Post, asserting, “I will not allow this paper to stay on autopilot and fade into irrelevance.” However, backlash continued, with notable figures like Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward criticizing the decision. Nearly two dozen columnists released a statement condemning the lack of an endorsement, calling it a “terrible mistake” that betrayed the newspaper’s core values.

David Hoffman, recently awarded a Pulitzer Prize, also resigned from the editorial board, expressing his frustration with the decision’s implications amid rising authoritarian threats. Baron echoed similar sentiments, questioning the principle behind the non-endorsement and suggesting that it contradicted the newspaper's mission to inform readers on crucial democratic issues.