On Friday afternoon, the New York Times and other outlets reported that, for the first time in almost 50 years, the Washington Post would not be endorsing a candidate in the 2024 presidential election—and would refrain from endorsing candidates in all future presidential elections, too. In a note to staffers, the newspaper’s beleaguered publisher, Will Lewis, implied that the decision was made for reasons of editorial independence, and characterized it as “consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.” Others interpreted the decision rather differently: “This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty,” former Post editor Marty Baron wrote on X.

The Post’s move came days after the news broke that Patrick Soon-Shiong, the owner of the Los Angeles Times, had prevented the paper from endorsing a presidential candidate this year. In a letter to Soon-Shiong that was reprinted by the Columbia Journalism Review, Mariel Garza, who resigned as the newspaper’s editorials editor on Wednesday, argued that the “non-endorsement undermines the integrity of the editorial board and every single endorsement we make, down to school board races. People will justifiably wonder if each endorsement was a decision made by a group of journalists after extensive research and discussion, or through decree by the owner.” In a post on X, Soon-Shiong defended his decision and said that the editorial board “was provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation…. Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision.” (“Makes sense,” Elon Musk posted in response.)

And I suppose these twinned non-endorsements did make sense, if you’ve been tracking the trajectory of these two newspapers—and the news business in general—over the past few years. Not to make a long story perhaps unfairly short, but I think it’s notable that both the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times are newspapers that were “saved” years ago by very rich guys who these days seem mostly frustrated that they have not been able to make those newspapers earn their respective keeps.

Soon-Shiong, a biotech billionaire, did Los Angeles and the nation a huge favor by purchasing the Times from the publishing company then known as “Tronc” in 2018; since 2023, though, the Times has shed roughly a third of its newsroom in multiple rounds of layoffs, moves Soon-Shiong justified by noting that the paper could no longer afford to lose as much as $40 million per year. The Washington Post, of course, has been owned since 2013 by Jeff Bezos, whose $205.6 billion fortune, according to Forbes’ Real-Time Billionaires List, currently makes him the third-richest man in the world. But all that money has not stopped Bezos from signing off on layoffs and buyouts at the Post, kvetching about the newspaper’s current inability to turn a profit, and installing Lewis, an apparent twit, as its publisher.

Both men deserve kudos for stepping in to “save” their respective newspapers when they did. But they’ve also both already gotten all of the kudos they’re ever going to get for doing so, and at this point I’d bet that they’re both primarily concerned with minimizing the additional hassle that those papers present to their lives and their bank balances. Unfortunately for them, running a credible news outlet in the Trump era is pretty much all hassle, all the time. Fact-based news outlets these days are constantly hammered with bad-faith critiques of their reporting and analysis from conservatives hoping to intimidate these outlets out of reporting disfavorably on Donald Trump and his craven lickspittles in the Republican Party. These critiques often cite the volume of critical reporting and analysis focused on the right versus the left as evidence of newsroom bias, as opposed to evidence that the American right these days is disproportionately made up of liars, charlatans, and cryptofascists. These cries of “bias” never, ever end. The manufactured outrage is constant, and it is meant to cloud the discourse and exhaust hardworking reporters to the point where they back down.

The tactic doesn’t usually work, at least not on the editorial side. The people who are left in today’s trimmed-down newsrooms are generally smart, idealistic people who are not swayed or fooled by these empty critiques of their work. The people who sign these reporters’ paychecks, unfortunately, are not always so resistant. The biggest offices in modern media C-suites are sometimes filled by businesspeople who hear half the country constantly shouting about media bias and wonder whether or not the allegations might be true. These people can sometimes interpret the concept of “editorial neutrality” as meaning that their newsrooms should be equally critical of both major political parties, and it would not surprise me to find that they privately fear that their outlet’s revenue problems are partially a function of their newsroom being too “anti-Trump.” The non-endorsements at the Times and the Post were not editorial-side decisions; they were C-suite decisions. And it’s reasonable to wonder whether those C-suites are hoping to hedge their bets in advance of a very, very tight presidential election in which one of the candidates is a vindictive jerk with a massive grudge against the legacy media.

From a practical standpoint, these endorsements are no great loss. It is no longer 1912, after all, and very few citizens are relying on their newspapers to tell them which presidential candidate they should vote for. The newspaper endorsement is in many ways vestigial from an era when these outlets wielded vastly more cultural influence than they currently do. Pretty much everyone in America has already made up their minds about the presidential election, and those few people who haven’t almost certainly are not regular readers of the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times.

But as Garza noted in her letter to Soon-Shiong, it’s more that the non-endorsement affects the rest of the newspaper. If a newspaper’s owner or publisher can dictate whether it endorses someone for president, then how is a reader to trust that all of the other endorsements weren’t also influenced by the fat cats at the top? Sure, nobody’s relying on a newspaper to tell them who to support for president, but I suspect that people are absolutely willing to take a paper’s advice on who to support for county commissioner or state representative or any number of other, less prominent races. Interference in the presidential endorsement affects the credibility of all the other endorsements, too. As Garza also noted, it’s just plain weird that a newspaper that has spent years reporting on Trump’s unfitness for office would refrain from endorsing his opponent. The non-endorsement, in that context, makes it seem like Harris is somehow unfit to lead—or, at least, that’s how the Trump campaign is currently spinning it; they wrote that “even her fellow Californians know that she’s not up for the job.”

None of this is new, of course. For most of the history of journalism in America, the owners and publishers of newspapers, magazines, and other outlets have attempted to influence the content therein, sometimes very blatantly. But it’s sort of sadly ironic that this historical trend is re-emerging at the Washington Post of all places. More than any other American newspaper, perhaps, it was the Post and its Nixon-toppling Watergate investigation that embodied the concept of the independent newsroom, filled with fearless journalists and heroic editors, reporting the truth no matter the cost. Nowadays, apparently, the blowback that the Post might receive for officially endorsing the only fit candidate for president is a price that’s too high to pay.

In an Oct. 15 press conference announcing his Fentanyl Task Force, Gov. Spencer Cox took a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook. He took a highly emotional and timely topic, the fentanyl overdoses ravaging our community, and used it to whip up fear and blame federal immigration policy.

“Of the many ways that the Biden administration’s border policies have been a failure, the fentanyl crisis is the most stark and dangerous,” he said.

I have no problem criticizing the current administration — I have done so on many occasions. But I do draw the line at misinformation, fearmongering and parroting false, Trumpian rhetoric in a desperate bid for approval.

There’s no denying fentanyl is and has been a crisis in Utah, with this year breaking records in fentanyl seizures by June, and anything that helps keep our community safe should be applauded. But in a moment when Cox could have showcased how he’s addressed this burgeoning crisis during his two gubernatorial terms, and discussed what changes he’s making moving forward, he chose to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment.

If you’re going to name a villain, name the correct ones: chemical manufacturers, cartels, loopholes in United States trade regulations and American citizens who profit off the drug trade.

A recent Reuters report on the sneaky shipping loopholes cartels use to smuggle the chemicals through the U.S. into Mexico and then back into the U.S. for sale is telling. Despite the nasty lies Trump tells about immigrants, the fentanyl in the U.S. mostly “comes through legal ports of entry in vehicles driven by American citizens.” And U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports that 85% of the convicted smugglers are U.S. citizens.

Cartels and U.S. drug smugglers are clearly not the same as immigrants, and illegally smuggling drug is not the same as illegally crossing a border. So why all this talk of immigration policy? It’s easier to inflame emotions rather than focus on policy and facts. This is not the first time immigrant communities have been maligned and used as political fodder to fearmonger and distract from weak policies, and it has devastating consequences.

In the aftermath of Trump’s comments about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, the town received at least 33 bomb threats. And on a national scale, we’ve seen a more than 80% increase in hate crimes since 2015, as individuals and white supremacy groups are emboldened by hateful rhetoric.

This is the true “crime wave,” and it’s not coming from immigrants, it’s coming from those that have a vendetta against them. No one should have to live in fear that their family could be targeted for hateful violence, regardless of their background. To accept that would be reminiscent of a 1940s Germany-esque dystopia in the “land of the free.”

Immigration is a complex and emotional topic. Maybe you’re affected by it personally or perhaps it triggers a deep fear of change that lurks in many of us. Talking about change can often make us wonder if we will make the cut in the new world we find ourselves in. Perhaps reflecting on the crazed advancement of technology, of social media, of new faces on the block, of shifting gas prices and confusing new language makes your heart race. Breathe. Not everything that feels like a threat is one.

What is a threat? Using specific groups of people — our neighbors, friends and community members — as pawns in a political grab for power. When politicians press emotional buttons instead of doing their job — working for the public good — we all lose.

Elizabeth Hutchings is the communications director at Alliance for a Better Utah, a government watchdog and political transparency advocacy group. She is a passionate affordable housing advocate, avid mountain athlete and persistent voice for civic engagement in her group chats.

The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.

Data Skrive

One of the best receivers in college football will be on show when Jalen Royals and the Utah State Aggies (1-6) take on the Wyoming Cowboys (1-6) on Saturday, October 26, 2024.

The Aggies’ matchup versus the Cowboys will be available on CBS Sports Network.

Keep up with college football all season on FOX Sports.

Learn more about the Utah State Aggies and the Wyoming Cowboys.

How to Watch Utah State vs. Wyoming

• When: Saturday, October 26, 2024 at 7 p.m. ET
• Location: Jonah Field at War Memorial Stadium in Laramie, Wyoming
• Live Box Score: FOX Sports

Read More About This Game

• Utah State vs. Wyoming Predictions

Utah State’s 2024 Schedule

Utah State 2024 Stats & Insights

• While Utah State ranks second-worst in the FBS in total defense with 502 yards allowed per game, it’s been a different story offensively, as the Aggies rank 10th-best in the FBS (470.6 yards per game).
• While Utah State ranks 18th-worst in the FBS in passing defense with 262.6 passing yards allowed per game, it’s been a different situation offensively, as the offensive unit ranks 10th-best in the FBS (311 passing yards per game).
• With 43.9 points allowed per game on defense, which ranks second-worst in the FBS, the Aggies have had to lean on their 73rd-ranked offense (27.9 points per contest) to keep them competitive.
• The Aggies own the 64th-ranked rushing offense this season (159.6 rushing yards per game), and they’ve been less effective on defense, ranking fourth-worst with 239.4 rushing yards allowed per game.
• In addition to a 48.5% third-down percentage allowed on defense, which ranks eighth-worst in the FBS, Utah State has put up the 82nd-ranked third-down conversion rate (38.3%) on offense.
• The Aggies have the 20th-worst turnover margin in college football at -6, forcing eight turnovers (83rd in the FBS) while turning it over 14 times (119th in the FBS).

Utah State 2024 Key Players

Wyoming’s 2024 Schedule

Wyoming 2024 Stats & Insights

• Wyoming has struggled on both offense and defense this season, ranking fourth-worst in total offense (278.1 total yards per game) and 24th-worst in total defense (412.9 total yards allowed per game).
• Wyoming’s passing game has been sputtering, ranking 17th-worst in the FBS with 171.1 passing yards per game. It has been more effective on the defensive side of the ball, allowing 240.9 passing yards per contest (100th-ranked).
• The Cowboys rank 10th-worst in points per game (17.1), but they’ve been more productive defensively, ranking 107th in the FBS with 30.4 points allowed per contest.
• The Cowboys rank 20th-worst in rushing yards per game (107), but they’ve been more effective on the other side of the ball, ranking 103rd in the FBS with 172 rushing yards conceded per contest.
• Wyoming’s third-down defense has been leading the way for the team, as it ranks eighth-best in the FBS with a 28.1% third-down conversion rate allowed. In terms of offense, it is posting a 34.6% third-down rate, which ranks 109th.
• The Cowboys have recorded six forced turnovers (108th in the FBS) and committed 10 turnovers (68th in the FBS) this season for a -4 turnover margin that ranks 101st in the FBS.

Wyoming 2024 Key Players

FOX Sports created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar.

Want great stories delivered right to your inbox?

Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily.

FOLLOW Follow your favorites to personalize your FOX Sports experience

Advertisement

Wyoming Cowboys

Utah State Aggies

College Football