It’s tremendously funny that The Washington Post has plunged into a boiling cauldron of angst by refusing to endorse Kamala Harris for president. The decision is deeply strange. It’s like McDonald’s refusing to defend hamburgers.

We all know that The Washington Post has a staff full of Democrats writing for an audience that is mostly Democrats (and bureaucrats). Who would suggest that an editorial endorsement would suddenly reverse someone’s opinion that the Post is totally biased?

It’s as if the Post didn’t realize that running the slogan “Democracy Dies in Darkness” on the front page for eight years didn’t indicate its belief that Trump = authoritarianism.

They are not alone. The Los Angeles Times decided not to endorse it. USA Today decided not to endorse it. It’s kind of funny that NPR and CNN are criticizing those who don’t support them, but the TV networks don’t support it, except, again, everyone can tell, daily.

NPR media reporter David Folkenflik is working with his anonymous inside leftist sources who want to keep the Post as “progressive” as possible. Ideological enforcers are proclaiming that this is a fiasco, that 200,000 angry subscribers have canceled for the lack of an article appearing on page A-20.

So why not support it? Even now, the Post editorial page is publishing moralistic anti-Trump attacks by the editorial board. They just didn’t write anything that explicitly stated “Vote for her.”

The endorsement is considered significant because it is a branding exercise. An endorsement would indicate that the Post is on the “right side of history.” Not publishing this edict is in some ways a huge betrayal.

Liberal billionaire Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post throughout its recent history of criticizing Trump, wrote an editorial telling his troops that public trust in the media is collapsing, so they should not support the media. candidates. It makes them seem non-independent.

It’s good that Bezos is paying attention to public trust numbers. But he’s not a busybody. Former Post senior editor Martin Baron, who thinks the lack of support is egregious, told The New Yorker that “people were very suspicious of Bezos, but the reality is that he never interfered with our coverage in any way.” .

Bezos did not intervene when the Baron’s Post won a Pulitzer Prize for a series of articles suggesting that Trump and the Russians were in cahoots, based on (and boosting) the infamous “Steele dossier,” which was a bag full of worthless hamburgers.

The billionaire didn’t intervene in 2020 when the Post criticized the theory that COVID leaked from a Chinese lab, or when Post reporters and “fact checkers” couldn’t determine whether Hunter Biden’s laptop was authentic. (It only took them until 2022 to admit it was a reality.)

In other words, the Post has a history of acting as ferocious attack dogs when investigating Republicans and as timid, dilatory skeptics when Democrats face accusations of scandals. They reliably act as an armored battalion of democrats.

CNN’s Brian Stelter demonstrated how liberals believe they are being nonpartisan when demanding Harris’ endorsement: “Some observers have been comparing this audience reaction to the exodus Fox experienced after accurately calling the election in 2020. But the difference “It’s that Fox fans backed off when it reported the truth; Post fans are worried the paper is backing away from telling the truth.”

“Telling the truth” and ruining Trump are synonyms. Voting for Trump is voting against the truth. That kind of arrogance underscores why so many people tell pollsters that they don’t trust journalists at all who still try to describe themselves as “mainstream.”