California’s largest far-left newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, has declined to endorse a candidate in the upcoming 2024 presidential election.
The paper is now drawing fire for its decision to stay silent on the race between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
The decision to withhold an endorsement for Harris, their home-state candidate, is a striking indicator of her waning support, even in the heart of liberal California.
Insiders suggest the driving force behind this decision was the paper’s owner, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, who allegedly blocked the editorial board from endorsing Harris.
Sources close to the board revealed that they had intended to back Harris once again, as they did during her runs for California Attorney General and U.S. Senate. However, Soon-Shiong reportedly stepped in, directing the board to remain neutral this cycle.
The Semafor report highlights how executive editor Terry Tang informed staff earlier this month that there would be no presidential endorsement in 2024, a decision that left many on the board frustrated and bewildered.
The Trump campaign wasted no time in releasing a statement, mocking the Harris-Walz ticket:
“The Ls keep piling up for Kamala Harris and Tampon Tim.
In Kamala’s own home state, the LosAngelesTimes— the state’s largest newspaper — has declined to endorse the Harris-Walz ticket, despite endorsing the Democrat nominees in every election for decades.
Even her fellow Californians know she’s not up for the job. The Timespreviously endorsed Kamala in her 2010 and 2014 races for California attorney general, as well as her 2016 race for U.S. Senate — but not this time.
It’s just the latest humiliating blow for the Harris-Walz campaign, who have also suffered stinging non-endorsements from the Teamsters and the International Association of Fire Fighters amid a revolt by rank-and-file union members against their traditional Democrat alignment.
Everyone knows the Harris-Walz campaign is a sinking ship. Two more weeks until it’s submerged for good.”
Mariel Garza, the Los Angeles Times editorial page editor, resigned in protest. In a statement to Columbia Journalism Review, Garza could not accept the decision to stay silent.
“I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent,” Garza said. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”
“I didn’t think we were going to change our readers’ minds—our readers, for the most part, are Harris supporters,” Garza added. “We’re a very liberal paper. I didn’t think we were going to change the outcome of the election in California.
“But two things concern me: This is a point in time where you speak your conscience no matter what. And an endorsement was the logical next step after a series of editorials we’ve been writing about how dangerous Trump is to democracy, about his unfitness to be president, about his threats to jail his enemies. We have made the case in editorial after editorial that he shouldn’t be reelected.”
“It was a logical next step. And it’s perplexing to readers, and possibly suspicious, that we didn’t endorse her this time.”
Leftist Garza’s letter went on to criticize the hypocrisy of the paper, noting that after years of slamming Trump in editorials, they now failed to endorse “the perfectly decent Democratic challenger.”
Soon-Shiong defended his decision on X, claiming that the editorial board was given an opportunity to present a balanced analysis of both candidates’ policies but chose to remain silent instead.
He argued that such analysis would have allowed readers to make an informed decision but noted that the board refused to engage in a fair and factual comparison of Trump’s and Harris’s records.
So many comments about the LA Times Editorial Board not providing a Presidential endorsement this year. Let me clarify how this decision came about.
The Editorial Board was provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation.
In addition, the Board was asked to provide their understanding of the policies and plans enunciated by the candidates during this campaign and its potential effect on the nation in the next four years. In this way, with this clear and non-partisan information side-by-side, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being President for the next four years.
Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision. Please vote.
Makes sense
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 23, 2024
Soon-Shiong’s statement prompted an immediate backlash from the left, with leftist lunatics like Keith Olbermann launching personal attacks and other disgruntled readers canceling their subscriptions in protest.
You’re a useless and spineless whore. Sell the paper, leave the country.
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) October 24, 2024
Hi @DrPatSoonShiong: I’m a @guardian reporter based in Los Angeles, and I’m writing about your decision not to allow the @latimes editorial board to endorse a presidential candidate this year. Can you clarify if this decision is related at all to your relationship with Elon Musk?
— Lois Beckett (@loisbeckett) October 23, 2024
Yeah I’m not reading all that. Just canceled my subscription and I’m encouraging my 800K followers to do the same.
— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) October 24, 2024
Yeah I’m not reading all that. Just canceled my subscription and I’m encouraging my 800K followers to do the same.
— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) October 24, 2024
I’m a lifetime print subscriber and my parents before me. I could not believe you overruled the editors. Your tweet confirms that you did. A sad day for journalism. Maybe you should rename the paper X.
— Charles E. McClung he/him (@fornotrump) October 24, 2024
