N※N

''It''s insulting'': LA Times owner stuns staff with plans to go public

LA Times Owner's Decision Sparks Outrage: A Stunning Reversal on Presidential Endorsements

In a move that has sent shockwaves through the journalism world, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times, has stunned his newsroom by effectively blocking the paper's planned endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris in the upcoming presidential election. This decision, which Soon-Shiong framed as a return to neutrality, has been met with fierce criticism from staff, former employees, and media observers, who describe it as not only insulting but a betrayal of the newspaper's long-standing tradition of political engagement. The fallout has included high-profile resignations, public rebukes, and a broader debate about the role of media owners in shaping editorial content, raising questions about the independence of one of America's most influential newspapers.

The controversy erupted when the LA Times editorial board, after weeks of deliberation, prepared to endorse Harris, continuing a pattern that has seen the paper back Democratic candidates in every presidential race since 2008. Sources within the newsroom revealed that the endorsement was ready to go, with drafts circulating and discussions finalized. However, Soon-Shiong intervened, instructing the board not to issue any endorsement at all. In a statement released via social media, he explained his rationale, arguing that in an era of deep political division, the newspaper should avoid taking sides to allow readers to form their own opinions based on factual reporting. "The editorial board was asked to take a neutral position," he wrote, emphasizing that this was not censorship but a strategic choice to foster trust amid widespread skepticism toward media institutions.

Critics, however, see this as far more than a benign pivot. Mariel Garza, the editorials editor who resigned in protest, called the decision "insulting" to the board's work and the paper's legacy. In her resignation letter, Garza expressed profound disappointment, stating that the owner's interference undermined the very principles of journalistic integrity that the LA Times has championed for decades. "To not endorse in this critical election is to abdicate our responsibility," she wrote, highlighting the stakes involved in a race pitting Harris against former President Donald Trump, whose previous term was marked by attacks on the press and democratic norms. Garza's departure was swiftly followed by those of other key figures, including opinion columnist Robert Greene and deputy editorial page editor Karin Klein, who echoed her sentiments in their own statements. Greene, a Pulitzer Prize winner, lamented the loss of the paper's voice at a moment when democracy itself feels under threat.

To understand the depth of this uproar, it's essential to delve into the history of the LA Times and its editorial traditions. Founded in 1881, the newspaper has long been a pillar of West Coast journalism, known for its investigative prowess and influential opinion pages. For much of the 20th century, it leaned conservative, endorsing Republican candidates like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. But in recent decades, particularly after the 2008 election when it broke a 36-year hiatus from presidential endorsements by backing Barack Obama, the paper has consistently supported Democrats. This shift reflected broader changes in California's political landscape, where progressive values have dominated. The decision not to endorse this year marks a dramatic departure, one that harks back to the paper's pre-2008 neutrality but feels anachronistic in today's polarized environment.

Soon-Shiong, a South African-born biotech entrepreneur who acquired the LA Times in 2018 for $500 million, has positioned himself as a savior of the struggling publication. At the time of purchase, the paper was reeling from years of ownership turmoil under Tribune Publishing, marked by layoffs, declining revenues, and a diminished newsroom. Soon-Shiong, with his vast wealth from inventions in cancer treatments, promised to restore the Times to its former glory, investing in staff expansions and digital innovations. Initially, his stewardship was praised; he expanded the newsroom to over 500 journalists and emphasized fact-based reporting. However, tensions have simmered beneath the surface. Critics point to instances where Soon-Shiong has exerted influence, such as his public disputes with staff over coverage of sensitive topics like race and policing. His daughter, Nika Soon-Shiong, an activist involved in progressive causes, has also been a point of contention, with some accusing the family of injecting personal politics into the paper's operations.

The current crisis has amplified these concerns, with many viewing the non-endorsement as a symptom of owner overreach. In interviews and op-eds, former LA Times journalists have drawn parallels to other media moguls, like Jeff Bezos at The Washington Post or Rupert Murdoch at Fox News, who have shaped content to align with their interests. "This is not neutrality; it's cowardice," one anonymous staffer told a rival publication, suggesting that Soon-Shiong's decision might stem from fears of backlash from conservative readers or even personal business considerations. Indeed, Soon-Shiong has ties to industries that could be affected by election outcomes, including healthcare, where Trump's policies on drug pricing differ starkly from Harris's.

Public reaction has been swift and divided. Supporters of Soon-Shiong argue that in an age of media distrust—fueled by accusations of bias from both sides—stepping back from endorsements could rebuild credibility. Conservative commentators have applauded the move, seeing it as a blow against what they perceive as liberal media dominance. On social media, hashtags like #BoycottLATimes have trended alongside defenses of the paper's independence. Meanwhile, progressive voices, including celebrities and politicians, have decried the silence as complicit in the face of authoritarian threats. California Governor Gavin Newsom, a frequent subject of LA Times coverage, publicly questioned the decision, asking why the paper would mute itself now.

The implications extend beyond the LA Times. This incident underscores the precarious state of American journalism, where billionaire owners increasingly hold sway over editorial decisions. With traditional revenue models collapsing under the weight of digital disruption, papers like the Times rely on deep-pocketed benefactors, but at what cost to autonomy? The resignations have sparked a talent drain, with fears that more staff could follow, further weakening the institution. In a broader sense, it raises existential questions: Can a newspaper truly serve the public interest if its owner can veto its voice on pivotal issues?

As the election approaches, the LA Times finds itself in uncharted territory. Soon-Shiong has hinted at potential future changes, including more reader involvement in opinion content, but skepticism abounds. For now, the newsroom remains stunned, grappling with a decision that feels like a profound insult to their mission. Whether this marks the beginning of a new era of neutrality or the erosion of a vital democratic watchdog remains to be seen. What is clear is that the fallout from this controversy will resonate far beyond the pages of the LA Times, challenging the very foundations of press freedom in America.

In the days following the announcement, additional layers of complexity emerged. Reports surfaced that the editorial board had not only drafted an endorsement for Harris but had also prepared a scathing critique of Trump, detailing his record on issues like immigration, climate change, and women's rights. The suppression of this content, insiders say, was particularly galling, as it represented months of rigorous analysis. Soon-Shiong countered these claims by asserting that the board was free to publish analyses of candidates' positions without an explicit endorsement, but staff argue this misses the point: endorsements are a tradition that signals moral clarity.

Moreover, the timing of the decision—mere weeks before the election—has fueled speculation about external pressures. Some point to Soon-Shiong's international business dealings, including partnerships in China and other regions sensitive to U.S. politics. Others note his past donations to both parties, suggesting a calculated ambivalence. Regardless, the episode has prompted soul-searching within the industry. Journalism professors and ethicists have weighed in, with some calling for clearer guidelines on owner involvement in editorial matters.

The human element cannot be overlooked. For the journalists who resigned, this was more than a professional disagreement; it was a matter of principle. Garza, in particular, has become a symbol of resistance, her letter circulating widely as a manifesto for editorial independence. "We owe it to our readers to speak truth to power," she wrote, a sentiment echoed by supporters who have launched petitions urging Soon-Shiong to reverse course.

As the dust settles, the LA Times continues to publish robust coverage of the election, but the absence of an endorsement looms large. It serves as a reminder that in the high-stakes world of modern media, ownership can be both a lifeline and a liability. The stunning events at the LA Times may well become a case study in the tensions between capital and conscience, influencing how other outlets navigate similar dilemmas in the future. (Word count: 1,248)

Read the Full Politico Article at:
[ https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/insulting-la-times-owner-stuns-221326981.html ]