The Los Angeles Times editorial board was blocked by the paper’s owner this month from endorsing Kamala Harris for president, triggering numerous staff members, with one leftist editor so upset she quit the publication.
The order was reportedly issued by Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong on Oct. 11, breaking the paper’s tradition of endorsing Democrat candidates since 2008.
Semafor reported on Tuesday: “Last week, the LA Times published its electoral endorsements for the 2024 election. And while the paper noted in its first line that it is ‘no exaggeration to say this may be the most consequential election in a generation,’ that was the only mention of the presidential race in its endorsements […] the paper would not be endorsing a candidate in the presidential election this cycle.”
Soon-Shiong’s decision ruffled the feathers of numerous staff members, including Times editorial chief Mariel Garza, who in a long-winded resignation letter argued she was “standing up by stepping down from the editorial board.”
“Ever since Dr. Soon-Shiong vetoed the editorial board’s plan to endorse Kamala Harris for president, I have been struggling with my feelings about the implications of our silence,” Garza wrote in her letter to Times Executive Editor Terry Tang.
“The non-endorsement undermines the integrity of the editorial board and every single endorsement we make, down to school board races. People will justifiably wonder if each endorsement was a decision made by a group of journalists after extensive research and discussion, or through decree by the owner,” she added.
Garza’s sentiment was echoed among Times staffers, according to screenshots of internal Slack messages obtained by The Wrap.
“I’ve… witnessed the last 10 months of mind-boggling decisions, disrespectful negotiations, and finally, yesterday’s cowardly, unexplained non-endorsement,” one staffer expressed. “I used to be proud that I worked at The Los Angeles Times. Now, I’m just embarrassed.”
“We’ve made ourselves the story and still had an impact, even if the intent was to stay neutral,” another editor stated.
Yet another Times writer wrote, “I’d really like to know how many people have canceled their subscriptions because of this non-endorsement… Are we going to end up paying for that in the long run?”
The decision by California’s largest newspaper not to endorse Harris in her home state evidently did prompt some subscribers to discontinue their subscriptions, with “Mrs. Doubtfire” screenwriter Randi Mayem Singer posting to X, “Just canceled my subscription, @latimes. WTF is wrong with you?”
Just canceled my subscription, @latimes. WTF is wrong with you?https://t.co/HZyKGcfnwz
— Randi Mayem Singer (@rmayemsinger) October 23, 2024
“Just cancelled my 30+ year subscription to the LA Times,” wrote another social media user.
Just cancelled my 30+ year subscription to the LA Times. Will miss it but if democracy is not important to the times then the times is not important to me. #LATIMES #patricksoonshiong
— Andrew Levey (@aslevey) October 22, 2024
The Trump campaign, as mentioned by Garza, seized on the news, asserting, “Even her fellow Californians know she’s not up for the job.”
The Times’ refusal to endorse Kamala suggests the paper is wary of endorsing a candidate with an uncertain political future and may be avoiding conflict with a potential incoming Trump administration.
Now it appears the paper may be cultivating a trend.
On Wednesday, former CNN editor Oliver Darcy reported The Washington Post also appears to be shying away from endorsing Harris.
Read Garza’s full resignation letter:
Terry,
Ever since Dr. Soon-Shiong vetoed the editorial board’s plan to endorse Kamala Harris for president, I have been struggling with my feelings about the implications of our silence.
I told myself that presidential endorsements don’t really matter; that California was not ever going to vote for Trump; that no one would even notice; that we had written so many “Trump is unfit” editorials that it was as if we had endorsed her.
But the reality hit me like cold water Tuesday when the news rippled out about the decision not to endorse without so much as a comment from the LAT management, and Donald Trump turned it into an anti-Harris rip.
Of course it matters that the largest newspaper in the state—and one of the largest in the nation still—declined to endorse in a race this important. And it matters that we won’t even be straight with people about it.
It makes us look craven and hypocritical, maybe even a bit sexist and racist. How could we spend eight years railing against Trump and the danger his leadership poses to the country and then fail to endorse the perfectly decent Democrat challenger—who we previously endorsed for the US Senate?
The non-endorsement undermines the integrity of the editorial board and every single endorsement we make, down to school board races. People will justifiably wonder if each endorsement was a decision made by a group of journalists after extensive research and discussion, or through decree by the owner.
Seven years ago, the editorial board wrote this in its series about Donald Trump “Our Dishonest President”: “Men and women of conscience can no longer withhold judgment. Trump’s erratic nature and his impulsive, demagogic style endanger us all.”
I still believe that’s true.In these dangerous times, staying silent isn’t just indifference, it is complicity. I’m standing up by stepping down from the editorial board. Please accept this as my formal resignation, effective immediately.
Mariel