The fallout over The Washington Post’s decision to abstain from endorsing a presidential candidate has been swift, with left-leaning columnists and readers alike taking to social media to voice their outrage.

To many of The Post’s staff and supporters, the paper’s lack of endorsement is more than disappointing; it’s a betrayal, especially given that the unendorsed candidate in question is Vice President Kamala Harris, who could use every bit of establishment support she can get as the election draws near.

Notable columnists wasted no time in decrying The Post’s decision. Alexandra Petri, the humor columnist, threw herself into the ring to compensate for what she sees as the editorial board’s failure to support Harris.

In a predictable move, Petri positioned herself as a lone voice of reason, chiding the paper and declaring, “If I were the paper, I would be a little embarrassed that it has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to make our presidential endorsement.” Ah, yes, how courageous—nothing screams “rebellion” quite like parroting the party line.

Ruth Marcus, a long-serving columnist with four decades at The Post, was even more candid. She railed against the decision, calling it “the wrong choice at the worst possible time.” Marcus insisted that The Post’s endorsement of Harris would be a “critical warning” against Trump, whom she labeled “the worst president of modern times.”

Marcus’s perspective makes it clear that, in her view, the role of the press isn’t to objectively inform readers but to steer them away from any candidate not aligned with progressive ideologies.

Karen Tumulty, another veteran journalist at The Post, doubled down, calling the decision a “slap in the face” to the newspaper’s staff and readers. Tumulty was livid that the paper would announce this decision just days before the election, implying that it somehow jeopardized the institution’s credibility. According to Tumulty, an editorial board’s responsibility is to take sides explicitly—no nuance, no neutrality, no middle ground.

The reality is that The Washington Post, with its thinly veiled preference for the Democratic ticket, rarely hides its leanings, but for the left, that simply isn’t enough. This is a backlash that exposes a troubling expectation from certain corners of the progressive movement: that the media’s duty is not merely to inform, but to mold the public’s choices in favor of the “correct” candidate.

The idea of the press as a force for independent thought is entirely discarded here. What these columnists are demanding isn’t journalism; it’s servitude to a party line.