Los Angeles Times columnist LZ Granderson joined PBS News Hour on Friday to attack his paper’s “extremely frustrating” decision not to endorse Kamala Harris in the presidential election. New York Times counterpart and alleged conservative counterweight David Brooks agreed, saying the Times and Washington Post’s similar decision “hurt the integrity of the paper.”

Host Geoff Bennett asked Granderson, “What does all of this signal to you, the moves by the owners of the L.A. Times and the Washington Post to not endorse in this race?”

Granderson replied, “Well, as you noted, I'm an op-ed columnist for Los Angeles Times. And so I need to be careful with my verbiage here, so I don't find myself on the unemployment line. But I will say this: I am extremely disappointed.”

He further claimed, “Given what I have been reporting and writing over the years, certainly over the last couple of years, and what I have been reading in our own newspaper, I did not think that an endorsement was going to be something that was going to be controversial.”

Granderson also claimed, “As a journalist and as a professor of journalism, this is extremely frustrating and disappointing and does not meet the moment that the nation is at right now.”

Brooks agreed, but first gave a history lesson, “We used to have yellow journalism in this country, where we had the owners really running the papers as personal ideological fiefdoms. We crawled away from that over decades and decades, and that was hard-earned independence for journalists, that there's a Chinese wall between the business side of the paper and the editorial side of the paper. And I think that Chinese wall is valuable to the integrity of our publications.”

He then lamented, “And when it seems like the owner is interfering with editorial decisions, then you have smashed the wall, you have hurt the integrity of the paper, and you may be trying to avoid retribution from Donald Trump, but at the cost of some level of integrity for your publication.”

Bennett then asked if any of this actually matters, “Are presidential endorsements by newspapers or newspaper editorial boards, are they necessary or effective these days?”

Brooks admitted they are not, “but it's the principle of creating the — creating this idea of editorial independence.”

“Independence” is a funny word choice. With the exception of a non-endorsement in 1988, the Post has exclusively endorsed Democrats since 1976. The L.A. Times, meanwhile, went from 1976-2004 without a single endorsement and since has endorsed only Democrats. Brooks’s New York Times hasn’t endorsed a Republican since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956. It's more accurate to say Democrats feel a sense of entitlement to own major newspapers' editorial sections.

Brooks did concede, “Everybody has their own opinion already. And, frankly, it's not a mystery which candidate the Washington Post actually supports.”

As Bennett started to wrap things up, Granderson interrupted in order to get in some closing thoughts, “It's very frustrating as a journalist to work for a publication that won't endorse someone when one of the candidates wants to arrest you for doing your job. It's frustrating.”

Clearly such rhetoric is so hyperbolic, even the top brass at the L.A. Times and Washington Post find it to be, literally, unbelievable.

Here is a transcript for the October 25 show:

PBS News Hour

10/25/2024

7:51 PM ET

GEOFF BENNETT: In the time that remains, I want to discuss the news about the news, namely the landscape around the newspaper editorial board presidential endorsements, in this case, the non-endorsements.

LZ, what is all of this signal to you, the moves by the owners of the L.A. Times and the Washington Post to not endorse in this race?

LZ GRANDERSON: Well, as you noted, I'm an op-ed columnist for Los Angeles Times. And so I need to be careful with my verbiage here, so I don't find myself on the unemployment line.

But I will say this: I am extremely disappointed. I have been covering national politics for 20 years, starting with Bush v. Gore. Every newspaper I have worked at had endorsed. And so, given what I have been reporting and writing over the years, certainly over the last couple of years, and what I have been reading in our own newspaper, I did not think that an endorsement was going to be something that was going to be controversial.

I don't know the background of the decisions of both the Times, as well as the Washington Post. I would just say, as a journalist and as a professor of journalism, this is extremely frustrating and disappointing and does not meet the moment that the nation is at right now.

BENNETT: David, how do you see it?

DAVID BROOKS: Pretty much the same way. Most journalists will probably see the same thing.

We used to have yellow journalism in this country, where we had the owners really running the papers as personal ideological fiefdoms. We crawled away from that over decades and decades, and that was hard-earned independence for journalists, that there's a Chinese wall between the business side of the paper and the editorial side of the paper.

And I think that Chinese wall is valuable to the integrity of our publications. And when it seems like the owner is interfering with editorial decisions, then you have smashed the wall, you have hurt the integrity of the paper, and you may be trying to avoid retribution from Donald Trump, but at the cost of some level of integrity for your publication.

BENNETT: David, in your view, are presidential endorsements by newspapers or newspaper editorial boards, are they necessary or effective these days?

BROOKS: No, but it's the principle of creating the — creating this idea of editorial independence.

I think Sewell Chan said it earlier in the program, that I think state and local and judgeship, those kind of editorial endorsements are tremendously powerful. I know I follow, frankly, the Washington Post editorial choices on a lot of local races, because I basically trust their judgment.

But on a presidential race, everybody has their own opinion already. And, frankly, it's not a mystery which candidate the Washington Post actually supports.

BENNETT: David Brooks…

GRANDERSON: It's very frustrating to me. If I just may—

BENNETT: Sure.

GRANDERSON: -- it's very frustrating as a journalist to work for a publication that won't endorse someone when one of the candidates wants to arrest you for doing your job. It's frustrating.

BROOKS: Absolutely.