No, the Washington Post didn’t just let democracy die in darkness

Article content

The slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” is the sort of self-important verbiage expected of a 20 year-old man in university whispering to a woman cornered in a campus bar, explaining that he’s “different than other guys,” and that he truly understands how tax cuts lead to fascism, or whatever.

It’s certainly not the sort of language that should be adorning an austere publication, such as the Washington Post, but it does, unfortunately. That the paper adopted the slogan shortly after Donald Trump assumed the presidency in early 2017 probably explains the childish wording. American journalists truly have envisioned themselves as superheroes resisting what they see as the coming night. If Christian Bale uttered “Democracy Dies in Darkness” in his gruff, growly Batman voice, it wouldn’t seem out of place.

Article content

At the time, Slate ran a story, which mocked the over-seriousness of the slogan, carrying the headline: “15 Metal Albums Whose Titles Are Less Dark Than the Washington Post’s New Motto.”

The absolute silliness of the moniker aside, when the Post adopted it, it was clearly meant in the usual way that journalists pump their own tires, by nodding to the cliché that “sunlight is the best disinfectant.” By this, it is usually meant, news reporting, shoe leather journalism, investigative reports — stories that shine lights on government wrongdoing, or coverups or just plain old secrecy.

However, on Friday after publisher William Lewis announced that the Post would not be endorsing a candidate for president this year, or in any future years, the paper’s journalists, left-wing celebrities and progressives of all varieties reacted as if the Post was allowing democracy to die in darkness. In fact, critics of the decision responded by simply repeating the slogan.

The decision, based on what has been made public, has nothing to do with the general direction of the newsroom, or how it covers the government. In fact, Lewis explained that “Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans.”

Article content

Article content

But suddenly, because the Post will not be endorsing Democrat Kamala Harris, the antiquated practice of political endorsements by editorial boards has been sanctified. To be clear, the paper isn’t endorsing Trump, it is merely not endorsing anyone.

Longtime columnist and editor-at-large Robert Kagan quit over the decision. “This is obviously an effort by (Washington Post owner) Jeff Bezos to curry favour with Donald Trump,” he told CNN. Kagan is, of course, a Bush-era Republican who left the party over Trump. Some of his columns include: “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending,” and “The Trump dictatorship: How to stop it.”

Presumably, Kagan was free to continue expressing his views, doing his part to resist the darkness, but the absence of a political endorsement was too much to bear.

The Washington Post Guild, the union representing the newsroom, released a statement that it was “deeply concerned” that the paper “would make the decision to no longer endorse presidential candidates.”

It went on to explain that “The role of an Editorial Board is to do just this: to share opinions on the news impacting our society and culture and endorse candidates to help guide readers.”

Article content

Opprobrium also came from celebrities. Author Stephen King cancelled his subscription, and Mark Hamill posted on X, reiterating the argument being repeated over and over, “Just canceled the newspaper that told us ‘Democracy Dies In Darkness.’” Was he surprised that the Washington Post’s slogan didn’t actually work like the Force?

The entire argument being made against the Washington Post, that it is betraying its commitment to government transparency, makes no sense. Unless this decision affects the reporting of the Post and the opinions its columnists share, critics have nothing to stand on and Luke Skywalker should keep his subscription.

Endorsing political candidates is a long tradition in newspapers, but it is also an awkward one. It is generally unusual for reporters or columnists to outwardly endorse a particular candidate, or at least it use to be. Even opinion writers are expected to be objective when considering the facts, even if they are making arguments and coming to conclusions.

The presence of editorial endorsements creates tension, because it can confuse the fact that the paper’s editors are supposed to be unbiased and objective.

Article content

This wasn’t always a source of controversy, however. An editorial, which carries no byline, is understood, or at least it use to be, the position of the newspaper itself. Not of the the journalists who work there, or of the union, or even of the editorial board, which writes the editorials, or even of management. An editorial may represent any one of these things or none of them. It is therefore, the position of the publisher, or owner of a paper.

In practice, especially within contemporary newsrooms, though, an editorial is the position expressed by the editorial board, on behalf of the publisher, which creates its own confusion for outsiders trying to understand what a particular piece of content represents.

The times when a publisher intervenes publicly, such as the case with the Washington Post, it stirs controversy, because, I suspect, the difference between a news story, an opinion column signed by a particular writer, and an unsigned editorial is not always well understood. Signposting which is which is a struggle online, compared to in print where sections are clearly cordoned off from one another.

Article content

Also controversial is the suggestion that Lewis, the publisher, made the decision at the behest of Bezos, but that is hardly surprising or nefarious, when you consider the traditional function of an editorial endorsement.

Lewis, in explaining the reasons for no longer endorsing candidates, argued the paper wished to be “independent.”

And therein lies why there are so many progressives who are upset. They do not want newspapers to be independent, objective or unbiased. They want them to be progressive, but not just progressive, partisan, to be in the tank completely for the Democrats. Not endorsing a candidate has little to with the Washington Post’s mission, and these progressive complaints have little to do with journalism.

National Post

Article content