The Economist endorses Kamala Harris, defends presidential endorsements as ‘example’ of independence

The Economist has endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for the 2024 presidential election, while several notable publications they chose not to make an endorsement for the presidential race.

Thursday, the editorial board announced it would throw its support behind Harris over former President Trump in the days leading up to the election.

“Tens of millions of Americans will vote for Mr. Trump next week. Some will be true believers. But many will take a calculated risk that in office, his worst instincts will be constrained. The leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace, but Ms. Harris’s shortcomings are commonplace and none of them would be a vote for her,” the article said.

The Economist has defended Vice President Kamala Harris’ endorsement of former President Trump. (Fox News/Getty Images/Fox News)

One separate editorial, released after their approval, the editors also defended the right to announce the presidential opinion as “not a break with independence, but an example of it”.

LARRY KUDLOW: TRUMP’S RE-ELECTION MOMENTUM CONTINUES TO GROW

“In our newsroom, opinions are shaped by two core values: respect for the liberal ideas that have guided us since our founding in 1843, and the belief that ideas must be challenged. Everyone from a newly hired intern to a 30-year veteran is encouraged to speak their mind. We started supporting US presidential candidates in 1980 when we supported Ronald Reagan and have since supported both Democrats and Republicans. We evaluate politicians not according to party, but according to their merits”, the editorial says.

The Economist’s endorsement came after several major news outlets announced they would no longer endorse a presidential candidate. (Photo by Sarah Rice/Getty Images/Getty Images)

He continued: “We don’t tell our audience what to believe – we know Economist readers will make up their own minds. But in a world rocked by war, populism, climate change, bitter rivalries and more, explanations are not enough. People Also here, clear, fact-based opinions have real value, even if you don’t agree with them.

The Economist’s endorsement came days after the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today all have announced they will not endorse a candidate for president this year, despite having done so for several decades.

Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos explained in an op-ed on Monday, the paper’s decision not to endorse a presidential candidate was made to restore credibility to journalism.

TRUMP GETS MAJOR APPROPRIATION FROM PENNSYLVANIA STEELWORKERS: ‘SAVED ALL OUR JOBS’

Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos defended his decision not to endorse a candidate earlier this week. (Axelle/Bauer-Griffin/FilmMagic/Getty Images)

“We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It is a bitter pill to swallow, but we fail the second requirement,” Bezos wrote. “Most people think the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this pays little attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and ongoing decline in credibility (and therefore diminishing impact), but a victim mentality won’t help Crying is not a strategy. We must strive to control what we can control to increase our credibility.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM FOX BUSINESS