The number of newspapers supporting a presidential candidate has declined as the industry has struggled financially over the past two decades, in part because owners believe there is no point in winning over some subscribers by taking a strong stance in a politically polarizing time upset.

But last week The Washington Post And Los Angeles Times angered readers for exactly the opposite reason: by choosing not to select a preferred candidate.

The fallout from both decisions continued Monday when Post owner Jeff Bezos took the unusual step of publicly defending the move in the columns of his own newspaper. Three members of the Post's editorial board resigned and some journalists implored readers not to express their disapproval by canceling subscriptions. Many thousands have already done this.

Bezos, in one Note to readers, said it was a principled position to forego endorsements. People basically don't care and see it as a sign of bias, he said. His comments came hours after NPR reported that more than 200,000 people had canceled their subscriptions to The Washington Post.

If NPR's report is true, it would be a surprising blow to a media outlet that does this Lost money and cut staff even though we had more than 2.5 million subscribers last year. A Post spokeswoman declined to comment on the report.

The number of subscribers has been declining in the last few days

The Times has acknowledged that it lost thousands of subscribers because of its own decision.

Both newspapers had reportedly prepared editorials in support of Democrat Kamala Harris. Instead, at the behest of Bezos and the Times' Patrick Soon-Shiong, they decided not to support her. Post editor Will Lewis called it “a statement in support of our readers’ ability to form their own opinions.”

But by announcing their decisions within two weeks of Election Day, the newspapers opened themselves up to criticism that their editors were trying to avoid angering Republican Donald Trump if voters returned him to power. “It seemed like they hadn’t made a fundamental decision,” said John Woolley, co-director of the American Presidency Project at the University of California-Santa Barbara.

Retired Post editor Martin Baron, on social mediasaid the decision showed “disturbing spinelessness from an institution known for its courage” and that Trump would see it as another invitation to intimidate Bezos.

Recommendations have a long history

In the 19th century, newspapers were heavily partisan, both in their news pages and in their editorials. Even as the trend toward unbiased news reporting took hold in the 20th century, editorial pages remained opinion-bound and the two functions were kept separate.

Still in 200892 of the country's 100 largest newspapers supported either Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain for president. However, according to the Presidential Project, as of 2020, only 54 people have chosen between Trump and Joe Biden. Woolley assumed there were even fewer this year and said they had no plans to count them.

Studies found that readers paid little attention to recommendations and, in a digital world, many did not understand the difference between straight news stories and advocacy-based editorials. In many cases, the chain owners left the decision to local editors. At a time when the news business is struggling, they didn't want to give any reader an excuse to leave.

“They really don't want to unsettle or upset the people who won't like their support,” said Rick Edmonds, a media business analyst at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank. “The solution is simply not to do them.”

Newspapers in two large metropolitan areas with liberal populations didn't seem to like that. The Post, which was under Baron's leadership during the Trump administration, saw its circulation increase with aggressive political coverage that often angered the former president.

The postal service's decision was met with displeasure from many quarters

Next to Baron was the decision denounced by Watergate-era reporting legends Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Columnists Robert Kagan and Michele Norris said they were leaving the newspaper in protest. Three of the nine members of the Post's editorial board said they were leaving this role.

Out West, a Los Angeles Times editor, Karin Klein, wrote this in the Hollywood Reporter She gave up the newspaper. Klein said that while Soon-Shiong had the right to impose his will on editorial policy, by withholding approval so late in the campaign he was effectively expressing the opposite of the neutrality he supposedly sought.

In fact, it was the timing that made Bezos express himself. “I wish we had made the change sooner, in a moment further removed from the election and the emotions surrounding it,” he wrote. “This was inadequate planning and not a deliberate strategy.”

In an article about the ongoing fallout on the Post's website Monday, more than 2,000 people left comments, many of whom said they were leaving. Even former GOP Congresswoman Liz Cheney said she canceled.

“From what I’ve seen over the last few days, the newspaper is hearing its subscribers very clearly,” Post media critic Erik Wemple said during an online chat Monday.

There are concerns that it could be journalists who are harmed

The protests have left some journalists worried, fearing that they and their colleagues will only end up being harmed. The union representing Los Angeles Times workers issued a statement last week saying: “Before you hit the cancel button, you should recognize that subscriptions help support the salaries of hundreds of journalists to finance.

“The more cancellations there are, the more jobs will be lost and the less good journalism there will be,” wrote Post columnist Dana Milbank.

It would be better, a commentator on the newspaper's website said Monday, to boycott Amazon – founded by Bezos – than the Washington Post.

Milbank also said he was upset about the decision. He helped organize a letter of protest that some of the newspaper's columnists signed. But he noted that, aside from the endorsement decision, he had seen no evidence that Bezos interfered in the Post's editorial work.

“For nine years I have been calling Trump a racist and a fascist, adding more evidence every week — and not once have I been suppressed,” he wrote. “I have never met or spoken to Bezos.”

This is what the owner said in his column. “I challenge you to find one instance in these 11 years where I have pushed someone at the post office to benefit my own interests,” he wrote. “It didn’t happen.”

Some newspapers are bucking the trend of non-recommendations. The Oregonian, for example, reversed its decision not to endorse him after remaining neutral in 2012 and 2016. “We heard the community's disappointment at our non-endorsements loud and clear,” wrote editor Therese Bottomly in response to a question from Poynter's Edmonds.

In Cleveland, Plain Dealer editor Chris Quinn polled his editorial team about whether he should endorse the president. “We are under no illusions that our support of the President will have an impact on voters,” Quinn wrote. “If we don’t want to influence voters, why would we publish something that will upset half of our audience?”

He cast the deciding vote. The Plain Dealer endorsed Harris. Quinn had asked the question via text to some of his readers. They considered it a betrayal, he wrote, and not supporting them would be an act of cowardice.

“That was enough for me,” Quinn wrote. “Our duty is to the readers.”

___

David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder.