The Washington Post is in a tizzy over Bezos' silence on his non-endorsement

new York
CNN
—

A day after The Washington Post announced it would not support a presidential candidate in this year's election or in the future, its billionaire owner is remaining silent while the paper's staff is in turmoil.

Jeff Bezos has so far refused to comment on the situation, although journalists at his own newspaper reported that it was Bezos who ultimately pushed through the planned support. A knowledgeable source told CNN on Friday that a recommendation for Vice President Kamala Harris was drafted before it was scrapped.

At least one editor has resigned in the past 24 hours, and senior Post employees have publicly expressed their dismay, as many in the newspaper's opinion section are angry at how the situation was handled.

For many current and former employees of the venerable newspaper, the timing of the announcement was highly suspicious, leading them to believe that Bezos' business interests influenced the decision.

Former Post editor Marty Baron, who led the paper under Bezos during the first Trump administration, called the decision an act of “cowardice.”

“To announce a moment of supreme principle just 11 days before the election is just highly suspicious and you just can't believe that it was a matter of principle at that point,” Baron told CNN's Michael Smerconish on Saturday morning.

Trump “continually” threatened Bezos, Baron noted. But when Baron ran the newspaper, Bezos “resisted that pressure” and was “proud” and “grateful” for that leadership.

“Bezos has other commercial interests, a large stake and Amazon, he has a space company called Blue Origin,” Baron said. “Trump has threatened to persecute his political enemies and he rewards his friends and he punishes those he considers political and thinks there is no other explanation for what is happening.”

Baron said Post publisher Will Lewis's defense of the non-endorsement was “ridiculous” and pointed out that the Post has given endorsements in other races as well.

“If your philosophy is that readers can make up their own minds about the big problems they face in this democracy, then don’t publish editorials,” Baron said. “But the fact is that it was only 11 days before the election that they decided not to publish an editorial in this one case.”

Several current Post journalists told CNN they had no problem with the editorial board not giving its approval in any situation, and some actively agreed with the decision. But they all found the timing of the announcement extremely disturbing.

“If we decide this now, on the eve of an election, we'll end up in a no-lose situation: cowards giving in or whining about not supporting Harris, which the Trump campaign is already trying to exploit, to undermine us,” a Post journalist told CNN. Another told CNN that “people are angry and feel senior managers are undermining journalism.”

Others expressed deep concern that a wave of readers who responded to the news have canceled their subscriptions, which will have a direct impact on the newsroom's ability to function.

Robert Kagan, a Post columnist and opinion editor who has worked at the newspaper for 25 years, publicly resigned Friday as a direct result of the non-support.

“This is obviously an attempt by Jeff Bezos to curry favor with Donald Trump in anticipation of his potential victory,” Kagan told CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront on Friday. “Trump has threatened to go after Bezos’ business. Bezos runs one of the largest companies in America. They have extremely complex relationships with the federal government. They depend on the federal government.”

On Friday, Trump met with executives from Blue Origin, the space exploration company owned by Bezos, hours after the Post announced its decision on Friday. The company has a $3.4 billion contract with the federal government to build a new spacecraft to carry astronauts to and from the lunar surface.

Trump advisers and supporters have been cheering since both the Post and the billionaire owners of the Los Angeles Times intervened to prevent their newspapers from endorsing Harris.

A post on

Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller also criticized the non-endorsement, writing: “You know the Kamala campaign is going under when even the Washington Post refuses to endorse it.”

Earlier this week, the Trump campaign seized on the Los Angeles Times' lack of support in a fundraising email, calling it a “humiliating blow” to Harris.

Other staffers said the decision not to support the candidate would ultimately harm American democracy, although Lewis maintained in his note to readers that the move should not be viewed as a “tacit endorsement of one candidate or condemnation of another.” may.

In a joint statement, legendary Watergate Post journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein called the decision “surprising and disappointing” and pointed out that the timing of the announcement “the Washington Post's overwhelming reporting evidence about the threat that Donald Trump poses.” represents democracy, is ignored”.

A group of 17 Post opinion columnists also released a statement Friday evening criticizing their own newspaper's decision not to support a candidate in the presidential election as a “terrible mistake.”

“The Washington Post’s decision not to support the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake,” they wrote. “It represents a departure from the fundamental editorial beliefs of the newspaper that we love and have worked for for a combined 218 years.”