> some journalists are calling it a betrayal of democratic responsibility

An individual, or organization, decides what their democratic responsibility is, so I don't think it's a betrayal. However, it is cowardice.

As a layperson who does not really follow politics, it is bizarre to me that ANY organization that labels itself a journalistic institution would willingly give up any pretense of neutrality by supporting any specific political candidate or party.

How do you feel about editorials, or opinion pages, or pundits that always have a slant?

Editorials and suchlike are typically presented as such, carved out and noted as their own special section, so that's okay. However, although TFA mentions editorial authors and staff, I got the sense that it was the papers themselves that were endorsing (or not) specific candidates.

Your sense was incorrect. Endorsements are exclusively the territory of the editorial board or a specific editor associated with editorials.

In essence, the same as editorials and suchlike.

I don't think it's cowardice to say that, in good conscience, I cannot endorse Trump, and I also cannot endorse Harris.

A non-endorsement could be because of cowardice, but it doesn't have to be.

Reminds me of Canto III in Inferno, when Virgil describes the souls of the uncommitted.

> to avoid backlash from Donald Trump if he wins the presidency.

This already feels like a dystopian nightmare.

> Donald Trump [..] presidency

That’s because it’s one we woke up from and now have a coin toss chance of having again.

I think the point was, "don't endorse X to avoid a backlash if Y wins" feels like a dystopian nightmare, regardless of the values of X and Y.

And my point is that what makes the difference between “feels like” and “actually is” a dystopian nightmare hinges very much on the precise value of Y.

In this case we already know that we’re living the nightmare.