Voters in DC say outlets refusing to endorse Harris because she’s ‘shaky’: ‘Scared to throw in behind her'
Americans in Washington, D.C. weighed on major liberal outlets' recent decision not to endorse a presidential candidate this election cycle.
Voters in the nation’s capital weighed in on the news that major outlets, including the hometown Washington Post, refused to endorse a presidential candidate with Election Day rapidly approaching.
The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, along with several other papers, are deliberately not picking between former President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris; both the Post and the Times have reliably backed Democrats in elections for years.
Multiple people told Fox News Digital they believe that these major liberal outlets’ choice to not endorse a presidential candidate just ahead of the November election is an admission that Harris is a "shaky" candidate and they don’t want to be embarrassed when she loses.
"If Trump were to get in, I have a feeling they’re a little worried about retribution," Mike, a New Hampshire resident visiting D.C., said, adding, "Harris is not the most secure candidate in the world, and I think people are scared to throw in behind her when things look so shaky."
One Virginia resident made the same point, saying not endorsing is "a good decision because I think Kamala will lose this time and most of the time these people endorse Democratic candidates."
He continued, "And I’m 100% sure this time Trump will win. That’s why they don’t want to mock themselves. That’s why they’ve stopped endorsing any candidate."
In recent days, both The Post and L.A. Times announced they would not be endorsing a presidential candidate this cycle. Post owner Jeff Bezos published an op-ed on Monday defending the paper’s decision as a way to gain back public trust in the media.
"We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement," Bezos wrote. "Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose."
He also noted he believes that endorsements do nothing to affect elections beyond creating "a perception of bias" among the public.
Bezos goal for the paper to become more impartial follows nearly 50 years of The Post endorsing a Democratic presidential candidate, save for the 1988 election, during which it also declined to pick a side.
LA TIMES ENDORSES GASCÓN FOR RE-ELECTION, CLAIMS BACKLASH TO CRIME POLICIES IS A MAGA 'FAIRY TALE'
It is also a remarkable decision considering the paper has previously called Trump "outright dangerous," said he had an "extreme agenda" and believed him to be the worst modern American president.
The owner of The Los Angeles Times, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, made the decision to prevent his paper’s endorsement of either presidential candidate for the first time since the 2008 cycle. It had predictably backed Democrats in the previous four races.
USA Today also announced that it would not be endorsing Trump nor Harris, with a spokesperson telling Fox News, "our public service is to provide readers with the facts that matter and the trusted information they need to make informed decisions."
The outlet had only ever endorsed a presidential candidate once before in its history, picking Joe Biden in 2020.
When asked if they supported big publications endorsing presidential candidates, voters gave Fox mixed responses.
Patrice and Candace, two Detroit natives, said they agree with the papers endorsing them, and were dismayed they didn’t declare support for Harris.
WASHINGTON POST OWNER JEFF BEZOS WANTS MORE CONSERVATIVE OPINION WRITERS AT PAPER: REPORT
"I think it’s really sad," Patrice said, adding, "I think they should make a decision… a lot of their readers need that support and need that help making that choice themselves. And I definitely want them to support Kamala."
When asked if she believes an outlet’s endorsement is showing too much bias, she said, "I don’t think it’s biased, if you’re making an informed decision."
Candace declared that these outlets "need to decide on what they want to do – give the readers an informed decision." When asked if that shows too much bias, she replied, "No, not at all."
Matthew from D.C. argued that the outlets "probably should" make endorsements. "It seems to be a cop-out for them not to." He called it "disappointing" that the papers declined to endorse a candidate and when asked who he would endorse if he were on the board of one of them, he said, "Harris."
LOS ANGELES TIMES COMES OUT AGAINST POPULAR ANTI-CRIME BALLOT INITIATIVE
Others said they were satisfied that the outlets washed their hands of an endorsement.
A Florida woman said, "I do not think the media should be part of politics," adding that endorsing a presidential candidate is "changing people’s opinions, and they should do their own research."
"To be honest, the newspaper’s about journalism," D.C. native Mo told Fox. "I don’t think they should be endorsing candidates, and so I think it’s better if they stop doing that altogether."
What's Your Reaction?
