As L.A. Times and Washington Post Kill Presidential Endorsements, Do Editorial Pages Still Matter?

variety.com:

Daniel D'Addario Chief TV Critic The landscape around presidential endorsements looks a great deal different this year — and may for many cycles to come.

After the Los Angeles Times’ owner, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, blocked the paper’s editorial board from its planned endorsement of Kamala Harris (prompting the resignation of editorials editor Mariel Garza), the Washington Post’s leadership announced that they will as a matter of policy no longer endorse presidential candidates. “Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds,” wrote William Lewis, the paper’s publisher and CEO.

This is a precarious moment for news organizations across the board — even before one considers the mitigating factor of what a Donald Trump restoration, with a vengeance-happy leader in control of the federal government, might mean for papers and for their parent companies. (Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos certainly has a fair amount to lose should Trump turn his attention in the direction of Amazon’s federal contracts.) It seems apparent that media literacy is at something of a low moment, which means that — and this is true to an extent on both sides — opinion pieces are read as declarations of purpose on behalf of the reporting staff of the paper, as opposed to (in reality) writing done outside the remit of the paper’s newsgathering staff.

The so-called “Chinese wall” between news and opinion is a standard feature of newspapers, and one that it is easy to overlook when angry at the failing Washington Post for what one might perceive as their biased coverage.