I don't quite understand why, because refusing to endorse anyone is a neutral step. I've always found newspaper endorsements to feel slimy. I'm not ascribing some kind of noble reason for them choosing not to endorse Harris, but their move to was to endorse _no one_.
Pulling the endorsement after it goes the wrong way isn’t neutral.
> they refused to endorse a candidate.
> for them choosing not to endorse Harris
There was no "they" or "them" involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Dies_in_Darkness
It might be still, I unsubscribed due to this nonsense. Went to the guardian.