Press endorsements: Can US media love letters tip the election scales?

In the lead-up to the 2024 US presidential election, a unique pattern has emerged among major media outlets. Editorial endorsements — long a staple of American elections — have been pivotal in shaping public opinion. This year, several prominent publications endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris over former President Donald Trump.
The New York Times and The Economist are two high-profile examples, with the latter even declaring, “We vote for Kamala”. These endorsements highlight the ongoing role that influential editorial voices can play, especially in a polarised environment where a few thousand votes may determine the outcome.
However, the 2024 endorsements also spotlight a complex relationship between the media and public trust, with signs that traditional endorsements may no longer carry the influence they once did.
Endorsements have a long history in US journalism. Newspapers and magazines traditionally endorse candidates as a way to help guide readers through complex issues and highlight the candidate best aligned with democratic values. The editorial pages of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and many regional newspapers have, over the years, used endorsements to clarify a candidate’s stance on key issues or emphasise the stakes of particular elections.
Some endorsements have had tangible impacts: in 1960, The New York Times’ endorsement of John F Kennedy helped sway sceptical voters amid an especially close contest. Similarly, The Chicago Tribune, historically a Republican-leaning publication, made waves by endorsing Barack Obama in 2008, lending credibility to his campaign and bolstering his appeal among moderate voters.
This year’s endorsements reflect a continued commitment to this tradition but also highlight new challenges. While The New York Times and The Economist voiced support for Harris, The Washington Post took a surprising stance by refraining from endorsing either candidate.
Publisher Will Lewis, with backing from owner Jeff Bezos, argued that abstaining would honour readers’ independence to make up their minds without influence. Lewis stated that this was a way for the publication to uphold its values of editorial independence.
The decision, however, drew an intense backlash. Critics, including former Washington Post Editor Martin Baron, argued that the move represented a failure of journalistic responsibility in an election that is, in many ways, a referendum on democracy.
Lewis’s position also pointed to a broader trend: the declining trust in traditional media.
In recent years, many Americans have expressed growing scepticism toward the media’s motives, seeing endorsements as indicative of partisanship or undue influence from media owners. For example, The Wall Street Journal, which has generally supported conservative candidates, has adopted a more cautious editorial stance this cycle, seemingly to avoid alienating its diverse readership amid an increasingly polarised political climate.
Although The Wall Street Journal has not directly endorsed a candidate, it has signalled positions through its editorial choices and opinion pieces. Similarly, Fox News and CNN maintain reputations that lean toward conservative and liberal perspectives, respectively, though without explicit endorsements this election cycle. These stances have given rise to concerns that endorsements may merely affirm the preferences of each outlet’s regular readership rather than sway undecided voters.
Yet in a race as close as the 2024 election, where polls suggest the winner could be determined by narrow margins, a well-placed endorsement might still have the power to influence undecided voters. Traditionally, endorsements serve as a ‘nudge’ for voters who may not be following the intricacies of campaign issues or who are wavering between candidates.
However, with a widespread erosion of public trust in the media, it remains unclear how impactful such endorsements will be. In fact, USA Today and its network of regional newspapers, which span a wide array of local publications, decided not to endorse any presidential candidate, citing a commitment to neutrality for their diverse reader base across the United States.
Comparing this endorsement culture to that of the Indian media reveals a striking contrast. In India, large editorial brands typically do not publicly endorse political candidates. Instead, they emphasise policy analysis and detailed coverage of candidates without explicitly instructing readers whom to vote for.
This practice reflects both journalistic culture and public expectations in India, where neutrality — or at least the appearance of it — is often prioritised over advocacy.
Direct endorsements from major Indian outlets would likely prompt significant backlash, undermining credibility and leading audiences to question editorial motives.
Interestingly, in the US, endorsements extend well beyond the presidential race and into state and local elections. Local newspapers frequently endorse candidates for governors, senators, mayors, and even school board members, operating on the belief that local endorsements can bring vital attention to issues that matter in these specific contexts. This practice underscores how deeply ingrained the endorsement culture is within American journalism, contrasting with India’s approach, where the media’s role is generally seen as one of observer rather than advocate.
Ultimately, the mixed response to 2024’s endorsements, particularly The Washington Post’s decision to abstain, illustrates a shifting media landscape where endorsement power may be waning. The fact that prominent outlets continue to endorse candidates — while others retract — speaks to the broader debate over the media’s role in a democracy.
As public trust in traditional media remains under pressure, endorsements may no longer be the decisive factor they once were. In an election as fiercely contested as this one, where every vote counts, even the most high-profile endorsements may struggle to sway an audience increasingly sceptical of the mainstream media’s impartiality.
(Rohit Sharma is an award-winning journalist residing in Washington DC)