That's a really good point I had not considered. It's signaling, I see that. To be withheld when it always been given would seem to be to be a very loud signal. This will be fascinating to examine after the election in a journalism class. I see a PhD thesis on withholding endorsements in the future..

> it sends a pretty loud message to the Democratic party that normally reliable media orgs have lost confidence in the democrat party’s ability to bring forth a competitive candidate against Donald Trump.

It's not two media organizations. Both wrote endorsements of Harris.

Two self-interested billionaires decided that they and their personal fortunes would be better off if those endorsements were not published.

The message this sends to the Democratic party is: suck up to the rich guys if you want power. It's bad for society.

> suck up to the rich guys if you want power

You don’t think this is a recent lesson? Pretty sure every politician already realized this. Since literally forever. Hell, I worked for a company whose wealthy owner had a steady stream of politicians flowing in and out of our offices promising the world for a handout, support, and help. Seemed like every week there was a tour or two for somebody. I have met literally 3 governors, several senators, US reps, state reps, county commissioners, multiple presidential candidates, sheriffs, mayors, wannabes for all and scores of political support staff who excitedly walked in my office while trying to schmooze the old man.

> It's not two media organizations. Both wrote endorsements of Harris. > Two self-interested billionaires decided that they and their personal fortunes would be better off if those endorsements were not published.

How is it worse than a small cadre of elitist mono-culture editors using the reputation of WaPo for their chosen candidate?

Bezos didn't force WaPo to endorse another candidate, I think it's actually good they don't endorse anyone at all.