The Guardian in another article explains that they are annoyed because Musk used twitter to promote his preferred candidate.
The Guardian itself used their own platform to publicly endorse Harris.
This deja-vu of childish antics is just comical in 2024
Yes and no. For many decades they only operated in the UK. More recently they have launched digital-only US and Australia editions, whose editors are based in the US and Australia respectively, creating content aimed at each country’s audience using local journalists, but the three editions share content for stories of global significance. But still their HQ is in the UK, and I believe their UK staff and readerships are significantly larger than their US or Australia operations
That's how newspaper endorsements work. In this case the writer of the endorsement cannot themselves vote, but their opinion can still have weight.
The Economist, another UK-based periodical with a more right-wing stance, explains why it endorses candidates:
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2024/10/31/...
This is somewhat common for British media groups; the Guardian also has Australian and New Zealand versions, and the BBC has _loads_ of regional versions.
The American election is special, in that it's the "leader of the free world". What we do here affects everybody, in a way that even the leadership of Germany, France, and England doesn't. Perhaps we'd have an opinion about the leadership in Russia or China, but they don't have free elections.
The government should probably refrain from making an endorsement, but if people can't figure out the distinction between a government and a newspaper, that's their own lookout.