New York Times disappoints liberals with updated endorsement policy: 'Such a poor choice'

The New York Times is receiving criticism from New York City progressives and journalists regarding its decision to stop issuing endorsements in state and local races.

The Times initially reported on the change, stating that the paper will not take a stance in Senate, congressional, or state legislative races in New York this fall, or in next year's New York City elections, including Mayor Eric Adams' reelection bid.

The Times' editorial board, as the institutional voice, aims to provide a consistent, independent perspective on the world to our global audience, based on time-tested institutional values, as stated by Kathleen Kingsbury, the opinion editor, in a statement to Planet Chronicle Digital.

"Although elections are crucial to our audience's lives and experiences, our editorial board has decided to halt the endorsement process for New York elections. We remain a New York City-based journalistic institution, both historically and in the future. Our newsroom will continue to report on New York electoral races, and Opinion will provide perspective on the races, candidates, and issues at stake."

The Times will continue to offer its endorsement in presidential races.

The Times' decision on social media was criticized by New York-based journalists, progressive politicians, and former Times staffers on social media.

"Ben Smith, former Times columnist and editor-in-chief of Semafor, criticized the Times edit board's decision to abandon their role as the only trusted source of information on NYC politics, leaving the city's political landscape to be controlled by small interest groups."

Carol Giacomo, a former Times editorial board member, wrote that the NYT's surrender of its accountability mechanism and influence in its own backyard was an unfortunate decision.

Pablo Zevallos, a lawyer and local Democratic figure, stated that the civic life of their city is stronger when the @nytimes Editorial Board supports progressivism and good government. However, he believes this is a misconception.

"Ryder Kessler, a progressive activist and former New York assembly candidate, wrote that the move he was making was the exact wrong one. He added, "[Times editorial board member] @MaraGay and the board have been forthright on the most important challenges facing NY (e.g. housing scarcity, congestion pricing). If they believe these issues matter, they should be endorsing in MORE races — and further down the ballot.""

The Gray Lady faced criticism for ending their endorsements in New York races while maintaining their endorsements for presidential candidates, who have all been Democrats since 1960.

Josh Barro, a Very Serious Substack writer, stated that the local endorsements were influential and usually positive, but nobody cares about the NYT's presidential endorsement.

Erin Durkin, a New Yorker reporter, argued that newspapers should not endorse candidates at all, but to keep largely meaningless national endorsements and stop quite influential New York ones is a different matter.

Michael Powell, an Atlantic staff writer, stated that while he loves the NYT, the paper's decision to endorse Trump is a terrible one that abandons its civic responsibilities. However, Powell noted that the paper's endorsements are particularly crucial in NYC and NJ.

The Times did not respond to Planet Chronicle Digital's inquiries about the decision to remove Kingsbury's statement. It is unclear whether the decision was made unanimously by the editorial board.