"The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election."

 "We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates. As our Editorial Board wrote in 1960: 'The Washington Post has not "endorsed" either candidate in the presidential campaign. That is in our tradition and accords with our action in five of the last six elections. The unusual circumstances of the 1952 election led us to make an exception when we endorsed General Eisenhower prior to the nominating conventions and reiterated our endorsement during the campaign. In the light of hindsight we retain the view that the arguments for his nomination and election were compelling. But hindsight also has convinced us that it might have been wiser for an independent newspaper in the Nation's Capital to have avoided formal endorsement.'" 

That's "A note from the publisher," William Lewis, of The Washington Post, "On political endorsement."

Great! I prefer this policy, especially if it is based on a real commitment to professional, high-level journalism. There's a crazy amount of bias, which drives me away from whatever they are hoping to push. My sympathy for Donald Trump, the target of so much unfairness, is a bit absurd. I'm supposed to hate him? You idiots have made me love him. But somehow now you are drawing the line. What game is this?

We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for....

But why make the change right now?

... and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.

Which was, presumably, true all along, so why change now? 

We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president.

Interestingly, I am undecided, and wouldn't it be funny if it was because I was waiting for The Washington Post to tell me what to do?! 

Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds.

Yeah, could you do that too? Time to get back to that as well. 

Most of all, our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent. And that is what we are and will be.

Okay. Fascinating. But why now? Why withhold support from Kamala Harris? It can't possibly be that you'd support Donald Trump. I mean, I could understand, if you felt you needed to support Trump that you'd resort to this idea of not telling us, but that can't be what's going on here. I am amused at the thought though.

ADDED: The Washington Post also published "The Washington Post says it will not endorse a candidate for president/Publisher William Lewis explained the decision as a return to the newspaper’s roots":

An endorsement of Harris had been drafted by Post editorial page staffers but had yet to be published, according to two people who were briefed on the sequence of events and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The decision to no longer publish presidential endorsements was made by The Post’s owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, according to the same two people.

That article quotes Chief Communications Officer Kathy Baird denouncing the rejection of endorsement as "cowardice" and "a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty" (which is, presumably, a play on the paper's motto "Democracy dies in darkness"). 

We're also told of the decision over The Los Angeles Times not to publish an endorsement (which would have been of Harris). According to the daughter of the paper's owner — Patrick Soon-Shiong — "This is a refusal to ENDORSE a candidate that is overseeing a war on children.... For me, genocide is the line in the sand."

So, this may be all about Israel. The papers don't want to elaborate the reasons for supporting Harris because they would need to avoid or somehow deal with the topic of Israel's war against Hamas. Harris can't explain her position very well either. She needs help, and she's not getting it. She's evasive, and the newspapers are — in this endorsement avoidance — evasive too. 

ADDED: The BBC is covering how much the Israel issue hurts Kamala Harris in Michigan: