In an unexpected twist, major liberal news sources like The Washington Post and Time magazine have chosen to sit this one out when it comes to endorsing Kamala Harris in her presidential bid. Both outlets, typically reliable cheerleaders for Democratic candidates, have withheld support this time, causing waves in the political world.

Harris, who stepped up as the Democratic candidate in July, is notably without a key backing from outlets that historically throw their weight behind their party’s top pick. So, why are left-leaning giants shying away from Harris?

There’s no single reason, but the writing on the wall points to a few sore spots. As Vice President, Harris’ approval ratings have wavered, with recent polling showing a dip in voter confidence regarding her leadership. Combined with her often turbulent tenure and a series of unflattering media moments, the cracks are starting to show.

For her party’s biggest media supporters, it’s looking more and more like they’re betting on a different outcome—or maybe they’re simply hedging their bets, steering clear of a candidate they fear won’t take the White House in 2024. And if that wasn’t enough, another outlet has just joined the chorus of abstention.

From The Post Millennial:
USA Today has become the latest news outlet to decline to endorse a presidential candidate, namely Kamala Harris, this election season. The paper, the nation’s fourth largest, spoke to The Daily Beast on Monday and said that in lieu of an endorsement, they will provide “readers with the facts that matter and the trusted information they need to make informed decisions.”

USA Today Takes a Stand by Sitting Out

Joining the likes of The Washington Post and LA Times, USA Today—the fourth largest paper in the U.S.—has also chosen to withhold its endorsement of Harris. This choice is especially noticeable since USA Today broke with a 40-year tradition in 2020 by endorsing Joe Biden, citing what they called an “existential threat” posed by a second Trump term. Yet in 2024, they seem less concerned with any so-called threat and more intent on steering clear of the Harris ticket.

In a statement to The Daily Beast, USA Today explained their decision to avoid endorsements, saying they’d rather arm their readers with “the facts that matter and the trusted information they need to make informed decisions.”

This stance goes hand-in-hand with Gannett’s broader decision not to endorse a presidential candidate across its 200 publications. The question now is, why do these powerhouse publications prefer a hands-off approach in an election that’s shaping up to be just as contentious as 2020?

A Track Record in Question

Kamala Harris’ rise to the top of the Democratic ticket came as a surprise to some, but it hasn’t been without a fair share of scrutiny. Her record as Vice President has sparked debate across the aisle. From challenges managing her public image to mishaps in high-stakes public speaking engagements, Harris hasn’t exactly inspired confidence.

Even among traditional supporters, doubts about her electability have grown. And let’s face it—her numbers aren’t helping. With a dip in approval ratings and increased skepticism around her handling of high-profile issues like immigration and national security, Harris’ leadership record is not the bulletproof armor her party had hoped for.

Some commentators are wondering if media outlets are simply acknowledging the reality on the ground. It’s no secret that a substantial part of the electorate is hesitant about her prospects, and by keeping silent, these outlets might be avoiding future reputational damage. Could they be signaling that they, too, foresee her loss on the horizon?

Backing Off: A New Trend?

What’s even more interesting is the impact this is having within the media landscape itself. After refusing to endorse Harris, The Washington Post saw high-profile resignations and a notable drop in subscribers. The New York Times has backed Harris, but for how long they’ll stay the course is anyone’s guess.

The left’s unified media front, once a formidable force, now appears to be splintering. The lack of endorsements might signal a new trend where major outlets choose neutrality—or cautious silence—over bold endorsements.

For USA Today, the choice to refrain seems almost pragmatic. Instead of picking a side, they’ve opted to double down on the facts. According to Lark-Marie Anton, a spokesperson for Gannett (the parent company of USA Today), the goal is to give readers information without steering them in any particular direction.

In her words, USA Today believes “America’s future is decided locally—one race at a time.” Local elections remain fair game, but on the national stage, it’s a hands-off approach.

2020 vs. 2024: What Changed?

The contrast between USA Today’s 2020 endorsement of Biden and its non-endorsement in 2024 couldn’t be starker. When the Editorial Board broke its no-endorsement tradition by backing Biden, they painted a picture of a nation in peril, in need of stability.

Back then, they were emphatic: Donald Trump lacked the “temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty” they saw as crucial for a president. They didn’t just urge a vote against Trump; they backed Biden as a beacon of calm and competence.

Fast forward four years and the same board has decided not to weigh in at all. There’s an unspoken message here—perhaps a hint that this time, they don’t feel the same need to sway voters away from Trump.

Or maybe it’s just that Harris hasn’t shown herself to be the stabilizing force they were hoping for. Either way, USA Today is passing on the endorsement, making it clear that Harris’ candidacy doesn’t hold the same appeal.

Key Takeaways

• USA Today has chosen not to endorse Kamala Harris, signaling doubts about her candidacy.
• USA Today broke tradition in 2020 to endorse Biden but is steering clear of the presidential race this year.
• As outlets stay silent, questions arise on whether they anticipate Harris’ potential loss or simply wish to avoid aligning with an uncertain ticket.

Source: The Post Millennial