There’s one thing people on both sides of the political spectrum can agree with right now: This is arguably the most important presidential election in American history.

Literally everything is at stake—our trusted institutions, women’s healthcare, the basic rights of minorities, people who identify as LGTBTQ+, migrants, and even what’s left of what we call Democracy.

But following the cowardly acts of other major newspapers across the county to not pick a side, our local paper of record, The Tampa Bay Times, has decided to also sit on the sidelines, and safely watch what unfolds.

In a recent column, “Florida’s Best Newspaper” chose to explain to its readers why it won’t give an endorsement (though they call it a “recomendation”) to either Vice President Kamala Harris or former president Donald Trump. Despite decades of precedent, the Times now says they will not endorse a candidate because they never planned to, and that it’s also not the best use of their limited resources.

“Local news organizations constantly decide how to use resources for the most effect,” wrote the board. “For the Times Editorial Board, the choice not to make a recommendation for president — and dozens of other races — was one of those decisions. No one told us we couldn’t. No one killed our presidential recommendation after it was written. The fact is, we never wrote one and never intended to.”

This reasoning is reminiscent of a 10th grader, saying they didn’t actually get an incomplete on their homework, they just chose not to do it.

Instead, the Times gave recommendations to dozens of local candidates, amendments and ballot measures mostly in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, where “our readers needed us most and how much impact our recommendation could have on a race.”

But editorial boards, and columns, go beyond impact. An editorial board—while independent of the work a newspaper’s reporters do—often serves as the conscience of a publication. It is a reminder that there are humans there who think about intentions, character and conduct. The board gives readers a glimpse of a paper’s values, its principles.

But the Times saw this moment—a choice between a 34-time convicted felon found liable for sex abuse and a qualified, former prosecutor with a “weird laugh”—and said, “Nah, we’re good. Our moral compass is not needed at this moment in time.”

In a lot of ways, Times readers who aren’t locked out by a paywall shouldn’t be surprised. Yes, working on ballot recommendations is time-consuming, anxiety-inducing, and extremely hard work. Creative Loafing Tampa Bay did its best with only two full-time staff members—and often read reporting from other pubs, including the Times, in our research. We’re still getting grief about it.

But how much more time would it have taken to put the Times braintrust together and make a choice? Too hard, ultimately. Not important enough, to say the least.

The board has other priorities, anyway.

Despite admitting in their own piece that their own endorsements hold value because “the process bolsters healthy political conversation,” the paper defended their decision “to not choose a side” by arguing that no one asked for their opinion on the presidential candidates.

“We cannot think of a single reader who has told the Editorial Board over the past election cycle that they needed our help deciding on how to vote for president. Not one,” wrote the editorial board.

Is this how the editorial board chooses topics for their columns? The Times seems to have all the time and will to give their opinions on where a baseball team should play, who’s a journalist and who isn’t, protestor decorum, the benefits of opportunity zones for folks who invested in the paper, and so on.

But there’s just not enough general interest in this presidential race? Bullshit.

Perhaps the real reason is just simple math. Over recent years, the Times has sold assets, laid off employees, and just recently offered buyouts to stay afloat. So, it’s not a stretch to assume that the Times feels that choosing a presidential candidate, in this hostile political environment, will only anger half of their potential customers. It’s just not a good business move.

But not picking a side, is in fact, picking a side.

Activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Rev. Desmond Tutu once said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

Without a doubt, a Trump presidency would lead to the oppression of countless people.

But it probably won’t heavily impact the four men who make up the editorial board. It will, however, certainly affect the rest of us, and more than likely many of their own underpaid reporters.

How did you explain your decision to not endorse to the women on staff who’ll have to travel miles beyond the reach of your paper to get life-saving healthcare? How do you justify this to a staff member who identifies as nonbinary or transgender, or has a relative who is undocumented or a Dreamer?

It must be a relief to sit this one out, to know that when Trump refers to the “enemy within” there’s no way he’s talking about you or your publication.

Cowardice is comfortable, after all.

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.