Bezos knows what it's like to be in Trump's crosshairs. In 2019, Amazon lost a highly lucrative cloud computing contract after then-President Trump waged a vicious behind-the-scenes campaign to ensure Amazon was not chosen. Amazon Web Services has billions of dollars in government contracts that could be at stake over the next four years. There is no evidence that these business concerns played a role in the Post's decision to withdraw support from Harris, although Bezos reportedly made the decision himself.

He became the second billionaire newspaper owner this week to drop an endorsement of Harris. His decision to remain on the sidelines mirrored a similar move by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong to override his editorial board's endorsement of Harris and instead choose not to endorse a candidate . Both owners brought their newspapers into disarray.

Former Washington Post editor-in-chief Martin Baron, who won multiple Pulitzer Prizes for the newspaper during Trump's presidency, wrote a blistering statement about Bezos' decision: “This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that sacrifices democracy. “ Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate the Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners).”

Baron's statement all but said that Bezos was no longer worthy of owning the newspaper, whose coverage of Watergate in the 1970s remains one of journalism's greatest triumphs: “History will mark a disturbing chapter of the spinelessness of an institution that is famous for her courage.” Washington Post editor-in-chief Robert Kagan resigned on Friday after Bezos rejected the draft editorial. Readers also expressed outrage: Thousands canceled their subscriptions to both the Post and the LA Times, where the top opinion editor and a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial writer also resigned.

Bezos left it to Will Lewis, his new publisher, to explain the decision, but Lewis' comments seemed disingenuous. He described the decision not to support the paper as a return to the paper's pre-1976 roots. But if that's true, then why did the decision come so suddenly before the election? Apparently, all of the Post's top editors expected Harris' endorsement to be made public. Since 1976, when the Post began endorsing presidential candidates, the paper has made an endorsement only once, in 1988.

The lack of transparency about the decision not to publish the Harris endorsement is baffling, especially because the Post's coverage, both in news and opinion columns, has hit Trump pretty hard. For Lewis, however, the president's denial of endorsement is a “statement in support of our readers' ability to form their own opinions.” This is the kind of false impartiality that has rightly angered readers who wanted bolder reporting on Trump's extremism wish.

It's also a statement about taking the safe route and cowering to a candidate bent on punishing his enemies, something even Lewis seems to acknowledge. “We recognize that this will be interpreted in a variety of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, a condemnation of another, or an abdication of responsibility. “That is inevitable,” Lewis wrote. “We don’t see it that way. We see this as consistent with the values ​​the Post has always stood for and with what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in the service of American ethics, reverence for the rule of law and respect for human freedom in all its aspects aspects. ”

Bezos isn't the only one who wants to stay out of the fray. Under the headline “Why Some Outspoken CEOs Are Silent About Their Support for Harris,” The New York Times published an article earlier this week that listed prominent wealthy Harris supporters who have refrained from publicly endorsing her, including Jamie Dimon and Warren Buffett. “Titans of American business are apparently worried about a backlash from the Trump camp,” the story says. “Dimon has told his staff that he is concerned that the former president could retaliate against perceived enemies if Trump wins in November.” (A JPMorgan spokesman noted that Dimon had never publicly endorsed a presidential candidate.)

The New Yorker's Susan Glasser has written about the Republican business titans creeping back into the Republican fold, full of pragmatic justifications for overlooking Trump's egregious excesses.

But as the owner of a national newspaper known for its hard-hitting political coverage of Trump, Bezos should be held to a higher standard, and his willingness to silence his editorial board is troubling. In September, New York Times publisher AG Sulzberger chose the Washington Post as his platform when he wrote a column warning that a second Trump term could bring Hungarian-style press suppression to the United States. Sulzberger didn't mince his words:

“As they seek a return to the White House, former President Donald Trump and his allies have declared their intention to step up their attacks on a press he has long derided as the 'enemy of the people.'” Trump promised last year: “The LameStream media will be thoroughly investigated for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt reporting on people, things and events.” A senior Trump adviser, Kash Patel, made the threat even clearer: “We will prosecute you, whether criminally or civilly. “There is already evidence that Trump and his team mean what they say. By the end of his first term, Trump’s anti-press rhetoric – which contributed to a rise in anti-press sentiment in this country and around the world – had quietly morphed into anti-press actions.”

On September 30, the Times editorial board endorsed Harris, calling her “the only patriotic choice for president.” The first three paragraphs of the endorsement are notable for their clear focus on the dangers posed by Trump. The endorsement begins: “It is difficult to imagine a candidate more unworthy of the office of President of the United States than Donald Trump.” (The Boston Globe editorial board also endorsed Harris, arguing that she “takes a different path for the nation, firmly rooted in the best American traditions.”)

Certainly newspaper recommendations are no longer as important as they once were. And it's far from clear how many votes they actually influence. But I remember as a child accompanying my mother to the polls and she always had the Times recommendations in her purse. It wasn't that she wanted to blindly follow the newspaper's preferences. It's because the recommendations always included useful information about state and local candidates and ballot measures that were less regularly reported on and that my mother wanted so she could cast an informed vote.

That is journalism's most important job: holding power to account and giving people the information they need to make important decisions. The election of the president is certainly one of these decisions.

In 2017, under the leadership of a more emboldened Bezos, the Post introduced its new slogan: “Democracy dies in darkness.” Regrettably, on Friday the Post obscured what should have been a clear and principled endorsement of the president.

Jill Abramson was a senior lecturer in the Harvard English Department from 2014 to 2023 and editor-in-chief of the New York Times from 2011 to 2014. She currently teaches at Northeastern University's School of Journalism.