Russia seized on the U.S. mainstream media’s decision to break with their tradition of endorsing a presidential candidate ahead of the November 5 election to claim the Kremlin’s influence on the American press.
More than 200 U.S. news media outlets, including The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today, have announced they will not be endorsing the Republican or Democratic Parties’ candidates — former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.
In Russia, Maria Zakharova, spokesperson for the Russian foreign ministry, claimed that decision was made because both candidates have been marked with a “Russian stamp.”
“American newspapers, the bigwigs of the media business, refuse to support any candidate in the U.S. elections one after another. This time they cannot support anyone, because both have the stamp ‘Russian.’ The American media industry itself appointed Trump as such [labeled Trump as pro-Russian], having been making up fables for almost 10 years. And [Russian President Vladimir] Putin promised to support Harris’ candidacy. That is why the information mainstream in the States has been torn apart,” Zakharova wrote in her Telegram channel, as reported by the state-owned news agency RIA Novosti on October 29.
The claim is false.
Undoubtedly, Russia remains a part of the pre-election rhetoric in the United States due to its war against Ukraine and its destabilizing effect on the American allies in Europe, as well as the aid the U.S. provides to Ukraine’s defense. The Kremlin also reportedly paid millions of dollars to U.S. social media influencers to push narratives aimed to sow division in the American society months ahead of the presidential elections.
In early September, the U.S. Justice Department charged two Russian nationals who worked for RT, a media outlet funded by the Russian government, with covertly hiring U.S. influencers to create videos pushing narratives favorable to the Kremlin.
However, Zakharova’s claim that the “bigwigs” of American media do not endorse presidential candidates because both are marked with the “Russian stamp” is an exaggeration of the Kremlin’s influence over U.S. media of gargantuan proportions.
The editorials that the news outlets published to explain their decision not to endorse do not mention Russia at all.
In contrast with Zakharova’s speculations, this shift away from the old tradition is part of a yearslong discourse about press freedom, impartiality and political partisanship. The issue is much bigger than Russia and as American as it gets.
Critics of the move speak about the level of influence media moguls are able to exercise over the editorial decisions of the media outlets they own after at least three major outlets said the owners influenced the decision.
The Washington Post publisher William Lewis announced on October 25 that “to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and … to be independent,” the paper “will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election.”
Several media outlets, including the Business Insider, alleged that the decision was made by the owner of The Washington Post, American billionaire Jeff Bezos, and out of business interests rather than political. Bezos could be trying to secure federal contracts for his rocket company Blue Origin in case the presidential election had gone to a candidate other than the one supported by The Washington Post, the report said.
Three days later, Bezos denied the allegations in an October 28 op-ed published by The Washington Post. He took responsibility for the shift from the paper’s 36-year tradition but said his decision had nothing to do with his economic interests, or Blue Origin.
“What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one,” Bezos wrote. He never mentioned Russia in that op-ed.
The Los Angeles Times published its 2024 election recommendations on September 10. It did not include a recommendation to endorse any of the U.S. presidential candidates.
The newspaper’s owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, a renowned medical inventor and businessman said the decision was his, and he made it because choosing one candidate “would only exacerbate the already deep divisions in the country.”
His daughter, political activist Nika Soon-Shiong, said the candidates’ position on war in Gaza played a role in the decision not to support them, but her father denied that.
USA Today and more than 200 other outlets owned by Gannett, a New York City-based American mass media holding company, will not endorse a presidential candidate.
“None of the USA TODAY Network publications are endorsing in presidential or national races,” Lark-Marie Anton, USA Today spokesperson, told The Hill on October 28.
According to Anton, Gannett made this decision because the company believes “America’s future is decided locally — one race at a time … And with more than 200 publications across the nation, our public service is to provide readers with the facts that matter and the trusted information they need to make informed decisions.”
Zakharova’s claim about Putin’s support for Harris refers to Putin’s comment in early September that he would like Harris to win, only if for her “infectious” laugh.
In the U.S., most news media reported Putin’s comment was “teasing” and “not to be taken at a face value.”
Later in September, Zakharova’s boss, foreign minister Sergey Lavrov told Sky News Arabia that Putin was “joking” about supporting Harris.
