Why The Washington Post's nonendorsement might matter more

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

67% : "Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate the Post's owner" and other media owners.
59% : Seven years later, as Trump approaches Election Day with promises of retribution and violence, the Post's slogan is once again in the spotlight -- this time in light of the paper's sudden and unexpected decision to nix a planned presidential endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris, allegedly "made by owner, Jeff Bezos," the Post's union said on X.Although the impact of the Post's decision not to endorse a candidate may, at this stage of the 2024 campaign, be electorally minimal (the same as if it had endorsed someone), the implications of such a move may be more concerning.
50% : While the paper's executives insisted they had "come up with a slogan nearly a year ago, long before Trump was the Republican presidential nominee," the mantra was quickly -- and understandably -- taken by many as a rallying cry, not just for the Post, but for the media at large during the already-evident tumult of the Trump administration.
28% : Owners like Bezos and the Times' publisher Patrick Soon-Shiong are preemptively acting out of fear that "if Trump wins he could take vengeance on companies that cross him."
23% : While there may have been hell to pay if the Post and the Times had endorsed Harris, and then Trump won, that hell "will be visited on more vulnerable people to a much greater degree."

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.