Over 30 years ago, I met Katharine Graham, at the time the publisher of The Washington Post, and only later did I realize what an honor that was. Now, as a late–blooming journalist, I can truly appreciate her place in history.

After taking over the newspaper following her husband’s death in 1963, she grew the Post into one of the most influential publications in the world. Graham made bold editorial decisions, such as supporting the reporting of the Pentagon Papers and uncovering the Watergate scandal, which cemented the Post’s role in holding power accountable. Her emphasis on journalistic integrity and fearlessness in exposing the truth set a new standard for the role of a free press in a democracy.

Now, Friday, in one ominous decision, Graham’s memory, influence and integrity were shattered. Based on the decision of one man, its owner, billionaire Jeff Bezos, the Post will not be making a presidential endorsement this year for the first time in decades. 

This follows the same decision, not to endorse, earlier this week by the Los Angeles Times. And in the same manner, the decision was made by the L.A. Times owner, billionaire businessman Patrick Soon-Shiong. 

The editorial teams of both papers were ready to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for president, and those endorsements now sit in the proverbial trash can — the dustbin of history.

Before we get into why this happened, let’s dispute the old adage that newspaper endorsements don’t matter. They do. Earlier this week, The Advocateendorsed Vice President Kamala Harris. I heard from several people who said, sarcastically, “What a surprise.” But the reason is this election is so consequential, so crucial, so imminent that there can be no gray areas. We had to put a stake in the ground on behalf of our community.

Those of us in the know know why Bezos and Soon-Shiong pulled the plug, but for those who are ill informed, a nonendorsement implies that there are no differences between Harris and former President Donald Trump, and that works only to the advantage of one candidate — Trump — and his campaign took advantage of the news by touting the nonendorsement.

In this election, every endorsement matters because voters are turning to every source of information they can to try and make their decision about who to vote for. When Gen. John Kelly, a former Trump chief of staff, has the guts to come forward and call Trump a fascist, so too should reputable news organizations, which must go above and beyond this year to prevent a fascist from winning the election. 

And when news organizations go silent, they open the doors to fascism. This is not hyperbole. Immediately after the Post’s decision, California Congressman Ted Lieu tweeted, “The first step towards fascism is when the free press cowers in fear.”

That’s exactly what’s happening. Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief and co-founder of the news site Semafor, told NPR, “One of the central media stories in the U.S. right now is the people who run big media companies making accommodations for a second Trump presidency and thinking about how to avoid antagonizing him.” Going silent appeases fascism.

In Nazi Germany, the media played a critical role in aiding Hitler’s rise to power, not only through propaganda but also through its silence. Many newspapers, under state control or fearing repercussions, chose not to speak out against Hitler’s regime, effectively allowing Nazi ideology to spread unchecked. 

In a critical election, the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times endorse fascism

The lack of dissenting voices, whether from fear or complicity, created an environment where the public was largely shielded from the horrors being committed. This silence contributed to Hitler’s ability to manipulate public opinion and consolidate his authoritarian rule without significant resistance from the press.

So why did Bezos and Soon-Schiong, in appeasing a wanna-be dictator, rip up their newspapers’ endorsements? 

Soon-Shiong, in addition to owning the Times, has a diverse range of business interests, particularly in health care and biotechnology. He is a surgeon and billionaire, but he is not and never has been a journalist.

He founded a network of companies focused on advancing health care technologies, He also developed the cancer drug Abraxane and has invested in various biotech firms. These ventures are cash cows, and if he wants grants from the federal government for research or any other program, which can total hundreds of millions of dollars, he would rather put his head in the sand than stand up for democracy. 

Money first. Grants second. Investors third. L.A Times fourth. Democracy fifth. The same goes for Bezos — just replace the Times with the Post.

We all know Bezos is the founder of Amazon, one of the most powerful companies in the world. In addition to other investments, Bezos owns Blue Origin, a space exploration company. 

Read again: Bezos is not a journalist and never has been. The holidays are right around the corner, when retailers, like Amazon, make a large portion of their annual sales, estimated to be around 25 percent. That’s billions of dollars for Bezos, and many in the Trump and MAGA camps watch Bezos like a hawk. If his newspaper endorsed Harris, that would turn off a segment of consumers, and they would most certainly scream “boycott.”

That’s why companies are caving to the pressure to discontinue their DEI programs lest they piss off part of their customer base. 

We learned this week that another space nut — and Trump supporter and appeaser — SpaceX founder Elon Musk, has a real-life dictator friend, his phone buddy Russian President Vladimir Putin. Again a billionaire gone rogue all in the name of money. Billions of dollars are being invested by the federal government into space programs, and neither Bezos or Musk wants to miss out on any funding, even if that money comes from Russia.

The decision of the Post and L.A. Times not to endorse a presidential candidate poses a significant danger to the role of the free press in a functioning democracy. By refusing to take a public stance, these influential newspapers risk playing into the hands of their wealthy owners, whose business interests might be better served by political neutrality or silence. 

More ominously, such passivity could open the door to authoritarianism, as a weakened press fails to hold power accountable or provide voters with clear, informed perspectives, just like it did for Hitler. The silence of major media outlets serves not as impartiality, but as complicity in the erosion of democratic values and the rise of fascism.

I should only imagine that the beloved Katharine Graham is not only turning in her grave but shedding a tear from above for her beloved Washington Post.

Voices is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ community and its allies. Visit Advocate.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists, and editors, and do not directly represent the views of The Advocate or our parent company, equalpride.