The Scoop: The comms decisions that went into Washington Post’s non-endorsement disaster

Friday, just 11 days before the U.S. election, the Washington Post made a decision not to endorse either presidential candidate.

Publisher and CEO William Lewis leaned heavily on history in explaining the choice, extensively quoting a 1960 editorial board missive describing that 64-year-old decision then not to endorse. However, the paper later reversed course and has endorsed in all but one race since 1976. Lewis framed the decision as a return to the paper’s roots.

“We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable,” Lewis wrote, with an air of resignation. And he was correct.

The choice has been met with condemnation both within the newsroom and from many of its subscribers. NPR reports that 200,000 subscribers have canceled since the decision — a huge 8% of all subscribers.

Indeed, much of the speculation about the true reasons for the lack of endorsement center around Bezos and his business interests, most notably his space company, Blue Origin. The New York Times reported that representatives from Blue Origin met with presidential candidate Donald Trump on Friday, right around the time the non-endorsement decision was made, leading to some to wonder if a quid pro quo was in place. Blue Origin says there was not.

Bezos reportedly made the final decision to kill an editorial endorsing Trump’s opponent to Kamala Harris, which had already been drafted.

Besides public backlash, the Washington Post newsroom is also in turmoil over the last-minute choice. A group of Post columnists condemned the choice. Some resigned. Fabled reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein publicly criticized the choice, as did former executive editor Marty Baron: “This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.”

Why it matters:

Whether or not newspapers should endorse candidates is a matter for journalist trade publications to debate (and they are, especially as the LA Times also decided not to endorse). Here, let’s talk about how the decision was communicated.

One major factor was timing. With just 11 days before the election, it does not come off as a principled, long-planned stance. The news that an endorsement had already been drafted (though the paper denies that Bezos had read it) further raises eyebrows.

There would have been blowback regardless of when this decision was made. But the close timing to a close election makes the choice seem like a last-minute swerve rather than a strategic move.

The choice in Lewis’ column to tie the non-endorsement to history also raises eyebrows. Sure, the newspaper didn’t endorse prior to 1976, but that was generations ago and a vastly different world of newspapers, media and politics. Returning to a stance of 48 years ago is unlikely to impress many, but strike subscribers (especially younger ones) as out-of-touch with today’s world.

And finally, there’s the issue of the billionaire in the room. Bezos purchased the Post in 2013 for $250 million and has since improved the institution’s fortunes. But that brings complications, especially in the ultimate political city of Washington. His interests in Blue Origin and Amazon are far more lucrative than the paper, and Trump has made it clear he rewards those who like him -– and seeks to punish those who oppose him. Why would Bezos take on such a risk when it was already a bygone conclusion that the paper would support Harris?

The conflict of interests here are only set to grow. We’ll see how the Post attempts to navigate this sticky situation – and tries to win back subscribers at a pivotal moment.

Editor’s Top Reads:

• In other political news, Puerto Ricans are coming into focus as a key constituency after warmup comic Tony Hinchcliffe insulted the U.S. territory during a Trump rally Sunday. While citizens of Puerto Rico cannot vote, migration has made them an important voting bloc in the mainland, including all-important Pennsylvania, which is home to 500,000 people of Puerto Rican descent. Hinchcliffe’s crude comments, which called Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage,” have mobilized that base. Bad Bunny, a Puerto Rican rapper and singer, posted a video from Harris to his 45 million followers on Instagram, scoring a key win for the Harris campaign. The Trump campaign has attempted to distance itself from Hinchcliffe’s comments, saying, “This joke does not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign.” Whether or not it reflects Trump’s view, it happened on his watch. Organizations are responsible for what guest speakers say, for better and worse. This is a reminder to vet comments beforehand – especially from comedians.
• Sorry, we’ve got even more politics. Expect it for at least another week. Conservative activist Robby Starbuck has made it his job to take down DE&I efforts at major companies like Tractor Supply Company and John Deere. And now a cottage industry is springing up to help companies defend from him, the New York Times reports, with communications agencies and consultancies building new practices around this area of corporate defense. Some of the advice these companies are touting is incredibly specific (don’t look at Starbuck’s LinkedIn or you might draw his attention, as if he was a T-rex). Some of it is much more granular, looking through annual reports and websites for triggering phrases. Whether or not you hire one of these consultants, make sure the work of understanding your DE&I commitments is being done so you aren’t caught off guard.
• Hey, we did find one non-political story for you today! Instagram head Adam Mosseri confirmed that videos that gain less traction on Instagram have downgraded quality. “In general, we want to show the highest-quality video we can … But if something isn’t watched for a long time — because the vast majority of views are in the beginning — we will move to a lower quality video,” Mosseri said in a video, as reported by The Verge. “And then if it’s watched again a lot then we’ll re-render the higher quality video.” After a user raised concerns about how this might impact smaller creators, Mosseri said that people interact with a video because of its content, not quality. Still, it’s something to bear in mind when uploading.

Allison Carter is editor-in-chief of PR Daily. Follow her on Twitter or LinkedIn.