SPJ ethics leaders decry editorial interference at LA Times and Washington Post amid debate over presidential endorsements

Home > SPJ News > SPJ ethics leaders decry editorial interference at LA Times and Washington Post amid debate over presidential endorsements

SPJ News
Latest SPJ News | RSS

10/28/2024

CONTACT:
Caroline Hendrie, SPJ National Executive Director, chendrie@hq.spj.org
Kim Tsuyuki, SPJ Communications Specialist, ktsuyuki@hq.spj.org

Update: Jeff Bezos, the owner of The Washington Post, issued a statement late Oct. 28 saying that he took a principled stand in ordering the paper not to publish its planned endorsement in the presidential race in the interest of combating public mistrust and perceptions of bias that undermine the news outlet’s independence. Read the full statement here and The Post’s story on it, including an update on editorial board member resignations, here.

INDIANAPOLIS – Society of Professional Journalists ethics leaders today denounced the apparent decisions by the owners of the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post to preventing their respective editorial boards from publishing endorsements for president just days before the election.

SPJ ethics leaders worry that this marks the beginning, and not the end, of such interference, which flouts the ideal of editorial independence. The SPJ Code of Ethics states that acting independently is one of four core principles of ethical journalism, and that journalists should "Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.”

News reports indicate that last week L.A. Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos prevented staff at their respective newspapers from publishing presidential endorsements, leading to resignations and recriminations in both newsrooms.

“Journalists at both publications have pushed back. Good for them,” said Fred Brown, who has been chair of SPJ Ethics Committee several times, starting in 1999 and most recently from 2022 to 2024. “When there is an obvious difference between the candidates, it’s ridiculous and craven not to take a side when your tradition is to endorse.”

Lynn Walsh, a former ethics committee chair and SPJ National president, said, “This is definitely a slippery slope, and I don’t think it’s far-fetched that publishers or part-time owners might try to exert more control over editorial decisions in the future. If ownership begins dictating what stories can or can’t be published, it sets a precedent for compromising journalistic independence, which could lead to deeper restrictions on news coverage over time.”

Andrew Seaman, who chaired the SPJ ethics committee from 2014 to 2018, agreed: “Announcing that an organization that historically endorsed candidates won't do so only weeks before an election leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. My hope is that the firewall between the editorial/opinion pages and the news sections remains strong, but only time will tell. If any good comes from this, it's a public discussion about the role of endorsements, editorial pages, and the importance of independent newsrooms.”

The SPJ Code of Ethics notes that being accountable and transparent is a core principle of ethical journalism, and that journalists should "encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content." Yet, the Washington Post and L.A. Times have failed to fully and transparently disclose the reasoning behind suddenly choosing to break with their past precedents of endorsing candidates.

Despite endorsing presidents in every election since 1976, the Washington Post says it is “going back to its roots” of not endorsing candidates, while the L.A. Times owner has largely skirted the question of why it is not endorsing a candidate. Journalists, including the papers’ own employees, and members of the public have been left to speculate that newspapers’ owners are not endorsing a candidate for fear that doing so will negatively affect their business interests.

SPJ ethics committee member Eric Wishart noted that the Washington Post's decision not to endorse in the presidential race came despite its endorsements in congressional races earlier this month. "As the Post's former editor Marty Baron has pointed out, the paper's sudden policy change so close to the election comes after it endorsed Angela D. Alsobrooks for the U.S. Senate race in Maryland and Eugene Vindman for a House seat in Virginia," Wishart observed. "Why decide to single out the presidential election at the very last minute?"

While SPJ’s ethics leaders object to the recent decisions to cancel planned endorsements, their views vary on whether journalism is best served by news outlets endorsing political candidates.

After all, members of the public often fail to see a difference between a news outlet’s newsroom, which seeks to cover the news in a nonpartisan way, and its opinionated editorial board, and how news outlets seek to keep the two sides separate.

“I am not a fan of impartial news organizations endorsing presidential candidates,” Seaman said. “There was likely a time and place for that to happen – but not in today's climate, where trust in journalism is so low.”

Likewise, Walsh said that she has “never been a fan of endorsements by news organizations.”

“In the past, news outlets could lead people through an experience of consuming the news,” Walsh said. “Opinion was easy to tell apart from the news. It was neatly organized. Those days are over. There’s an abundance of opinion content online. So, my question is: Do people care who a news organization wants to win an election? As trust in news continues to sit at all-time lows, I don’t think they do – if they ever did.”

The SPJ Code of Ethics says journalists should “avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.”

Brown said there are two arguments for “reconsidering” endorsements.

“One is that an endorsement creates a suspicion that the newspaper will give the endorsed candidate more favorable coverage,” he said. “If an editorial page doesn’t endorse anyone, that removes one argument supporting political bias in news coverage. The other argument is that they don’t have much effect except in down-ballot races for legislative and municipal offices.”

Andy Schotz, SPJ ethics chair from 2007 to 2010, said he is not convinced that the recent endorsement bans are the “blow to journalism and to democracy” that some purport.

“Many other newspapers don’t endorse, yet they still ably serve their communities and fulfill their journalistic responsibilities,” Schotz said. “But even if you disagree and believe the newspapers must be a beacon through their editorial voice, they've done that, too, repeatedly editorializing on the presidential candidates in various ways. One more editorial urging readers to vote a certain way wouldn't be a groundbreaking opinion.”

Schotz thinks the owners of the Washington Post and the L.A. Times made bad decisions by interfering with the workings of their newspapers shortly before Election Day, possibly to avoid political retribution, without explaining themselves to their readers and staffs. But since both papers already have been so critical of Trump, “withholding that final endorsement editorial won’t rescue newspaper owners Patrick Soon-Shiong and Jeff Bezos' standing with a potential second Trump administration.”

Even so, SPJ strongly supports the journalists who resigned in protest. The SPJ Code of Ethics says journalists should, "Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations."

While SPJ's role is not to weigh in on political endorsements, SPJ President Emily Bloch shared the ethics committee's concerns.

“It’s scary to see this play out so close to Election Day,” Bloch said. “It’s also a low blow to the editorial teams working under the presumption of editorial independence. The problem comes down to transparency between leadership and the L.A. Times and Washington Post newsrooms. That transparency has clearly been in short supply.”

SPJ champions journalists by recognizing outstanding achievement, fighting to protect press freedom, promoting high ethical standards and educating new generations of emerging professionals. Support excellent journalism and fight for your right to know. Become a member and give to the Legal Defense Fund, First Amendment Forever Fund or SPJ Foundation.

-END-