Choosing not to pick a side backfires for The Washington Post

Picture this: over a quarter of a million readers slamming the proverbial door on one of the largest journalistic publications in the world.

The reason?

A non-endorsement.

That’s right.

More than 250,000 Washington Post readers have cancelled their subscriptions since the newspaper announced it would not endorse either candidate in the US presidential race.

Instead of backing a candidate as the publication has done for decades, The Post chose to sit this one out. And clearly, this decision did not sit well with readers.

Turns out, staying neutral these days says more than brands might want to believe.

In today’s increasingly polarised environment, staying silent can be an endorsement of its own. For brands, this raises a big question: if neutrality is dead, how should you speak up (or not) when it counts?

Saying nothing is still saying something.

The Washington Post thought it could take a rain check on the whole endorsement business. No big deal, right? Wrong.

By saying nothing, they inadvertently said a lot—just not what they intended. To readers, the silence read as a retreat, a cop-out, a shrug, at a time when they expected The Post to pick a lane.

Critics, including former Executive Editor Marty Baron, are calling the decision craven and cowardly.

Baron sees the move as an attempt by billionaire Jeff Bezos, owner of The Post, to pre-emptively bend the knee to the potential second coming of Trump, should he recapture the White House.

Keep in mind, The Post’s endorsement of the race is a decade long tradition, broken only two weeks before election day.

The decision was first announced Friday, 25 October. By the following Tuesday, the newspaper had lost 10% of its digital subscribers.

If this non-endorsement fallout tells us anything, it’s this: loyalty is fragile.

Audiences today are more values-driven than ever, meaning they want their go-to brands (and news sources) to stand for something. If a brand dodges that responsibility, consumers start to feel like they’re being strung along—or worse, abandoned.

The Washington Post might have meant well with its neutral stance. But readers clearly felt betrayed, leading to a tidal wave of subscription cancellations.

Why? Because when brands avoid taking a stand, they risk alienating the very people who once believed in them.

While brands talk a lot about customer loyalty, they sometimes forget that loyalty has to go both ways. 

These 250,000 readers didn’t just leave because The Post said nothing.

They left because, to them, The Washington Post quietly 'quit' on them first, abandoning the core values their readers came and stayed for.

When a brand makes a significant change—even if it’s just a non-action—consumers feel it. They sense when a brand’s commitment wavers or when it’s pulling back, and it often feels like a slow breakup.

Could that be what’s happening here?

Silence as a strategy can be high risk, low reward.

To be fair, silence can sometimes be a smart, strategic play.

Sometimes brands choose to lay low on purpose, hoping to sidestep controversy and keep everyone happy (or at least unbothered).

But in The Washington Post’s case? No bueno. This tactic has backfired spectacularly, creating the very controversy they wanted to avoid.

So, if neutrality can lead to a mass exodus, what’s a brand to do?

Acknowledge the dilemma. 

Silence doesn’t have to mean ghosting your audience. If you’re choosing not to take a strong stance, at least explain why. Consumers may be more understanding if they know where you’re coming from.

Be transparent. 

Honesty is your best bet. Consumers are less interested in perfection than they are in realness. If you’re going silent, be clear about it and avoid leaving them in the dark.

Know your audience. 

Poll them. Engage them. Tune into what they care about, and don’t be afraid to adjust your message to reflect that. Sometimes, simply checking in with your audience can signal that you’re still listening, even if you’re not speaking.

For brands watching, here’s the bottom line: silence can speak louder than words.

So if you’re going to stay silent, make sure you’re ready for the message it sends.

In today’s environment, neutrality isn’t neutral. Brands need to understand that non-actions—like not weighing in on issues or not aligning with causes—can be perceived as intentional positioning.

-Sophie, Writer