| The media landscape has changed a lot in recent decades, and one tradition is falling by the wayside this campaign season: newspaper editorial boards’ presidential endorsements. In today’s newsletter, Hannah Miller provides some context. Plus: What the chef at Noma is planning once the world-famous restaurant closes next year. If this email was forwarded to you, click here to sign up. Last week, twin revelations—that the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times had each, separately, chosen not to endorse a presidential candidate in the 2024 election—shocked readers and media observers. It wasn’t just that the policy changed quickly, but that editorials had been planned and drafts written before being shelved, ostensibly at the request of their respective billionaire owners. The fallout continues: There have been resignations of editors (including Pulitzer Prize winners) at both papers and canceled subscriptions. NPR reported that by midday on Monday over 200,000 people had abandoned their Washington Post digital subscriptions in protest, more than 8% of their total subscribers. But the decline of newspaper political endorsements is nothing new. Regional publications owned by Alden Global Capital, Gannett and McClatchy Newspapers have all pulled back from the practice in recent years. Even the New York Times, which endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris in September, said in August that it would no longer issue endorsements in local elections.  The Los Angeles Times building in El Segundo, California. Photographer: Kirby Lee/Getty Images North America But the Post’s and LA Times’ decisions hold much higher stakes and could be a death knell for presidential endorsements at major newspapers. The Post announced its decision less than two weeks before an election that has roughly the same odds as a coin flip. Both papers are owned by billionaires who’ve been criticized for protecting their own interests and bending the knee to the Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, who’s frequently ridiculed the news media for being biased against him. For Post owner and Amazon.com Inc. founder Jeff Bezos, the paper’s decision seems like a shocking reversal. He famously tussled with Trump during his first campaign and presidency, accusing Trump of “eroding our democracy” and acting inappropriately as a presidential candidate in 2016. Trump constantly linked his outrage at the Post’s negative coverage of his presidency to Bezos, and his criticism of Amazon’s dependence on the US Postal Service for deliveries hurt the online retailer’s stock price in 2018. Amazon also filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense alleging that Trump’s bias against the company caused it to lose out on a $10 billion cloud computing contract with the Pentagon. Bezos’ battle wounds from Trump could be the reason his paper chose not to run the endorsement it had planned for Harris. He also has another business to shelter from Trump’s wrath: his space exploration company Blue Origin, which has government contracts.  Bezos. Photographer: Alex Wong/Getty Images North America In a Post Opinion piece on Monday, Bezos wrote that the decision was based on principles, rather than business interests. He pointed to the declining credibility of the media and said presidential endorsements create perceptions of bias and non-independence. “I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it,” he wrote. “That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.” Bezos’ piece echoed some of what William Lewis, the chief executive officer and publisher of the Post, wrote on Friday when he said that the paper was returning to a past tradition of not making presidential endorsements and fulfilling its job of providing unbiased news. LA Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong, who made his fortune in biotech, said in a social media post that instead of an endorsement, he had asked the paper’s editorial board to draft a factual analysis of policies from both candidates, providing “clear and non-partisan information,” but that the board chose not to. He also dismissed claims from his daughter that the decision was politically motivated against Harris. Despite this push toward nonpartisanship, both papers chose to endorse 2024 political candidates in other races. At the end of the day, newspaper political endorsements are typically performative in nature and aren’t expected to change voters’ minds, according to Adam Penenberg, an associate professor of journalism at New York University. But he says their symbolic importance means that these newspapers’ decision not to endorse a presidential candidate triggered outrage for many readers, including his wife, who chose to cancel her Post subscription. The absence of the Post’s and LA Times’ presidential endorsements has perhaps brought even more attention and calamity to these papers than backing Harris would have. Penenberg says the lack of an endorsement tapped into people’s fear that these papers are too beholden to their billionaire owners, and that “they’re going to sell out their readers and they’re going to sell out their reporters because the rich person makes the decision.” | 
