
(DCWatchdog.com) – In a new utterly ridiculous “hurt feelings” case, liberal outrage against The Washington Post has exploded into a mass cancellation movement after the paper decided not to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris, or any candidate, for president.
This backlash highlights a growing divide within the liberal ranks, a movement often intolerant of dissent in its own ranks.
The Washington Post now faces a wave of cancellations predominantly from its leftist audience upset about the paper’s decision not to endorse Kamala Harris.
Traditionally endorsing Democrat candidates, with few exceptions, the Post’s choice left loyal readers feeling abandoned.
Publisher William Lewis emphasized the editorial board’s decision was made without external pressure, yet the backlash persists.
Liberals are taking to social media, sharing cancellations to protest. Using hashtags like #BoycottWaPo, they aim to make a political statement, frustrated by the lack of endorsement for Harris.
This movement has also sparked internal debates and resignations, revealing cracks within the Post’s operations.
Former Time editor-in-chief Nancy Gibbs criticized the decision, calling it “self-sabotage.”
Some journalists at the Post worry that these cancellations harm their work more than the executives or the opaque “opinions staff.”
The backlash raises questions about the influence of a vocal minority over traditional media strongholds.
Despite asserting its editorial freedom, the Post faces criticism for breaking a long-standing tradition since 1976 of endorsing candidates, except for in 1988.
“A cancellation movement swept through social networks. Instead of using an internal analytics tool to check traffic to their own stories, some Post journalists used it to chart the soaring number of subscribers visiting the customer account page that allows them to cancel their subscriptions,” declared Post reporters Manuel Roig-Franzia, Herb Scribner and Laura Wagner, cited by Fox News.
Internally, the decision led to conflict, resignations, and criticism from staff wary of the potential damage to their careers.
The Post rationalizes this move as a return to its roots, prioritizing its independence by not guiding readers at the ballot.
Nevertheless, Nancy Gibbs and many others see this as a damaging decision, risking alienation of its core readership.
The Post’s choice fuels conversation about the role of media endorsements in modern politics.
With traditional media struggling to maintain authority, who the media endorses—or doesn’t endorse—could shape electoral perceptions.
“Post reporters weighed in on the decision, mostly telling their readers and followers that canceled subscriptions would end up hurting journalists, not executives, and explaining the long-standing separation between the news staff and the opinions staff,” The Post writes.
An endorsement of Kamala Harris was drafted by Post staffers but had yet to be published, according to sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, according to the same sources. https://t.co/WC9fovTcvB
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) October 25, 2024
Copyright 2024, DCWatchdog.com