A few days ago, the Los Angeles Times proprietor, Patrick Soon-Shiong, prevented the paper’s editorial board from endorsing Kamala Harris for president.

Since 2008, the paper exclusively endorsed Democrat presidential nominees.  The paper has endorsed presidential nominees since its founding in 1881, pausing from endorsements only between 1976 and 2004.

Also recently, the WaPo refused to endorse Harris.  The editorial page editor, David Shipley, told coworkers he “owns” the decision.  However, other sources claim that the WaPo’s owner, Jeff Bezos, blocked the endorsement.

“We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” WaPo’s CEO Will Lewis wrote in his column.  It is the first time since 1988 that the WaPo isn’t making an endorsement in a presidential race.

It has to be remembered that both papers are Democrat propaganda outfits.  Both papers are of the Democrats, by the  Democrats, and for the Democrats.  Both papers have content that is obsequiously pro–Kamala Harris and viciously anti-Trump.

Yet both stopped short of going the distance and endorsing their preferred candidate.

So what does one make of this?

Rush Limbaugh used to say that polling outfits spend the months before the election attempting to shape public opinion about the race.

To know how things are really playing out, Limbaugh said, it is wise to wait until weeks before the election.  In this situation, the outfits in question have no choice but to reflect the truth or at least be close to the truth. 

Months ago, they claimed that Kamala was leading Trump by a significant margin.  Currently, they may not admit that Trump is leading in the polls, but they will claim that the race is close.  This insulates them from being discredited if Trump wins.

Something similar appears to happening with the non-endorsements in the news outfits.

However, there was outrage among staffers following this announcement.

The WaPo purportedly had a tense staff meeting to discuss the non-endorsement of Harris

Both papers had resignations from prominent members in protest.

Washington Post editor at large Robert Kagan resigned from the Post, while others expressed outrage.

Mariel Garza, a member of the L.A. Times editorial board, resigned from the paper and spoke to the Columbia Journalism Review lamenting the paper’s deviation from blatant partisanship.

Both the L.A. Times and the WaPo seem to be losing subscribers. Darth Vader Junior is among the deserting snowflakes. Yoda was right when he remarked about Vader Junior "Much to learn, you still have.”

I canceled our subscription to the LA Times because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with them being silent. In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is the only way to show I’m standing up.- mh#ThankYouMarielGarza 🙏 https://t.co/4qV3aULbx7

— Mark Hamill (@MarkHamill) October 24, 2024

The news had been spun to suit the Democrat narrative of these non-endorsements as proof that Trump will be a dictator.  The implication is that the proprietors have many other business interests in the U.S., and the news organizations fear retribution from Trump if he wins. 

Former WaPo executive editor Martin Baron also implied that Bezos is capitulating to Trump out of fear and that democracy has become a casualty.

If this were the case, both papers wouldn’t have endorsed Democrat candidates in 2016 and 2020.  They also wouldn’t have exclusively carried anti-Trump propaganda as they have been doing since Trump entered politics in 2015.

Why is there such a stark contrast between the owners and the staff members?

It appears that the owners care for the reputation of the paper.  They do not want to be proven blatantly wrong and, in the process, look ridiculous, and be subjected to mockery on social media.  The owners are astute businessmen.  They know that their decision will irk and drive away subscribers, which will cause financial loss, but they still acted.  They also know that the Democrats accuse Trump of what they are guilty of — i.e., targeting their political opponents.  They know that if Harris wins, there will be consequences.  Yet they held back from endorsement.

The newspaper’s staff members, on the other hand, are unrepentant propagandists who do not care about their reputation and would rather go down peddling propaganda.  They’d rather promote blatant falsehoods, retain their subscribers, and reap handsome profits.  They do not care about the mockery they will potentially receive beyond their liberal bubble.  They’d rather interpret a possible Harris loss as proof of racism and sexism in America and never initiate any remedial measures.

To lose two endorsements from major Democrat propaganda outfits further suggests that the tide is turning.

It seems obvious that Kamala Harris is in deep trouble.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.