The owner of the Los Angeles Times, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, is setting the record straight after a controversy erupted over the newspaper’s decision not to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for president. Despite the LA Times’ longstanding tradition of endorsing Democratic candidates, the paper chose not to back Harris. Semafor initially claimed that Soon-Shiong “blocked” the endorsement, sparking questions about media bias and editorial independence.
Mariel Garza, the editorial editor of the LA Times, who has since resigned, told Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) that she had begun drafting an endorsement for Harris. However, she was later informed that the paper would not be endorsing any candidate. According to Garza, the decision left her blindsided, suggesting it was the result of interference from Soon-Shiong.
But Soon-Shiong, a billionaire entrepreneur who bought the struggling LA Times in 2018, provided a different account of events. In a statement issued on Wednesday, he explained that the editorial board was not directed to withhold an endorsement of Harris but was instead instructed to take a fair and balanced approach, evaluating both candidates, including former President Donald Trump.
“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,” Soon-Shiong explained. “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 other words, Soon-Shiong encouraged the editorial board to present both Harris and Trump in a side-by-side analysis of their records and proposals. His goal was to allow readers to make their own informed decision, rather than sway public opinion with a traditional partisan endorsement. This approach, Soon-Shiong believed, would offer LA Times readers a non-partisan, factual analysis that would be more helpful during a divisive election cycle.
However, the editorial board did not follow this directive. Instead, they chose to remain silent, declining to endorse any candidate for the 2024 presidential race. “Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision,” Soon-Shiong revealed.
Garza, in response, did not dispute Soon-Shiong’s request for fairness but argued that what he had described was not truly an “endorsement.” “What he outlines in that tweet is not an endorsement, or even an editorial,” she told CJR. Garza saw the directive as an unwillingness to stand behind Harris, especially given the LA Times’ historically liberal stance and predominantly Democratic readership. In her view, neutrality in such an instance was tantamount to being complicit in dangerous political times.
“I’m not OK with us being silent,” Garza said. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up.”
Garza ultimately resigned from her position as a result of the controversy, citing her inability to align with the paper’s silence. She also acknowledged that the LA Times is a “very liberal” paper, whose readership mostly supports Harris. According to Garza, endorsing Harris would have been seen as a natural step, but she believed the fair and balanced approach requested by Soon-Shiong did not align with the paper’s traditional endorsement framework.
Sewell Chan, the executive editor of CJR, commented on the situation, explaining why Soon-Shiong had every right to set editorial policy for the paper he owns. “I have deep respect for the Soon-Shiong family, who rescued the paper from the doomed and recently bankrupt Tribune Company,” Chan wrote. “He’s a decent and thoughtful person, and as the owner of the paper, it is ultimately up to him to set the editorial direction.”
The crux of the controversy is not just about whether the LA Times should have endorsed Kamala Harris but about the broader issues of journalistic integrity and bias. Critics argue that Garza’s resignation and her defense of endorsing Harris reveal a deeper problem within mainstream journalism—an unwillingness to treat both sides of the political spectrum with equal scrutiny. Garza’s resignation underscored her frustration with the idea of “neutrality” during a time when she believed that standing against certain political figures was crucial.
To many observers, this controversy highlights the growing disconnect between legacy media outlets and the public’s demand for balanced reporting. While Soon-Shiong’s directive aimed to give readers a chance to weigh the policies of both Harris and Trump, the resistance from the LA Times editorial board exposed a reluctance to provide such even-handed coverage.
In the end, the incident reflects not only the internal struggles at one of the nation’s largest newspapers but also the broader challenges facing journalism in a highly polarized political climate. Many Americans are left questioning whether the media can be trusted to deliver impartial reporting or if it has become yet another battleground in the partisan divide.
4 Comments
If the owner wants unbiased and fair reporting and editorialism, he needs to HIRE unbiased and fair reporters and editorial writers instead of partissn HACKS!
Exactly; wanting and making it happen are two different things and in this case all he needed to do was fire some and hire others to do the right thing by giving the reading public all the facts from both candidates actual histrionics and let the people be truly informed!
Newspapers, any social media, is as biased as its creators want it to be. Some of the most respected newspapers today should have printed their papers on yellow paper in their heyday. It is up to those who purchase and read the paper to demand, or accept, the papers bias. The same with TV, Blogs, Vlogs, and whispered rumors.
Wow hear both sides and make a decision based on accomplishments, what a novel idea no wonder he is a successful businessman and person.