Re: Endorsing candidates: "Isn’t this what a newspaper is supposed to do?"
Newspapers are supposed to do many things, but opinions are not a "supposed to" feature. They do, although how relevant this is today is debatable. It has become a tradtion. A cynic might say that an endorsement is just a advertisement: "[X] does [Y] better". X could be a presidential candidate or a soap powder. Y could be "running the country more effectively for the population" or "washes whiter".
What a major newspaper like the WaPo is supposed to do is lay out the candidates' resumes, policies, with expert opinion on possible consequences of those policies, such as is done with our ballot information booklets for California Propositions. In this case, layed out side by side, the choice should be obvious depending on one's POV. The WaPo readership would mostly likely hugely prefer Harris.
Re: Endorsing candidates: "Isn’t this what a newspaper is supposed to do?"
Newspapers are supposed to do many things, but opinions are not a "supposed to" feature. They do, although how relevant this is today is debatable. It has become a tradtion. A cynic might say that an endorsement is just a advertisement: "[X] does [Y] better". X could be a presidential candidate or a soap powder. Y could be "running the country more effectively for the population" or "washes whiter".
What a major newspaper like the WaPo is supposed to do is lay out the candidates' resumes, policies, with expert opinion on possible consequences of those policies, such as is done with our ballot information booklets for California Propositions. In this case, layed out side by side, the choice should be obvious depending on one's POV. The WaPo readership would mostly likely hugely prefer Harris.