Like commenters argued yesterday, Amazon Web Services >> Washington Post staffers. Democracy may die in darkness, but Amazon revenue keeps the lights on, a point that publisher and CEO William Lewis has made to Post staffers this year already. 

After skating by for most of this general election without making an endorsement in the presidential race, staffers started complaining to Oliver Darcy over the last couple of days about executive pusillanimity. Lo and behold, Lewis has an essay out this afternoon declaring a return to the paper's roots by deciding that the presidential race has nothing to do with the "darkness" on its masthead.

In other words, they're not endorsing Kamala Harris. At least not explicitly:

We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see 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. We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president.

Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom non-partisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds.

Most of all, our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent.

And that is what we are and will be.

In the essay, Lewis relies on a standard declared by the paper's editorial board in 1960 that it would have been wiser to stay out of the 1952 election to maintain its independence. Possibly, but it didn't take long for the editors to change their minds. After helping depose Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal, the paper endorsed Jimmy Carter in 1976, and has endorsed in every election since then. The paper endorsed Joe Biden four years ago, Hillary Clinton in 2016, and to my best recollection had an unbroken string of endorsements for Democrat nominees since that first one for Carter. 

For that matter, they're endorsing in other races this cycle, or at least did so in primaries. The Post's editors endorsed Angela Alsobrooks for the Democrat nomination to the US Senate in Maryland as well as Eugene Vindman for the US House in Virginia, both Democrats. 

Besides, it's hardly a secret how the Post views Trump at least, if not Harris. They adopted their banner not after January 6, but just after Trump took office in 2017. Bezos owned the Post at that time too, and had used the slogan during the 2016 election before Trump had even formally won the nomination. It's still on the masthead, and even as Bezos put it there, Allahpundit recognized it for what it is:

The timing gives the slogan the same effect as that dopey NBC News story from a few days ago noting that Trump would not, in fact, become the shortest-serving president in American history. It’s a declaration of opposition to the new administration. If it wasn’t, they would have slapped it on the front page back when Barack Obama, a.k.a. “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation,” started snooping in journalists’ phone records.

With all that as background, does the refusal to participate in endorsements really matter? It does to Lewis' predecessor, Marty Baron, who called Lewis and Bezos cowards for refusing to participate:

Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.

Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly.

"This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."

Really? Courage might have been better channeled into demanding answers about Joe Biden's cognitive decline before Baron issued that endorsement, or at any time after that while Baron was still around. In this case, though, how much courage would it take to have the local newspaper in a community that's 95% Democrat endorse Democrats? One could argue that the decision not to endose is wrong-headed, but at least the editors stood up to the newsroom and didn't bow to their political agenda. 

And if the newsroom was "uniformly negative" about the lack of support for Kamala Harris, what does that say about the newsroom?

Maybe that's what Bezos and Lewis are trying to fix. Or at least what it's meant to paper over, so to speak.