The recent decision by Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the owner of the Los Angeles Times, not to endorse a candidate in the upcoming 2024 presidential race has sparked widespread debate and discontent among readers and staff alike. This bold move has not only led to resignations among editorial board members but has also provoked a significant backlash from subscribers who feel that the newspaper's integrity is at stake. With the political landscape becoming increasingly polarized, this decision raises important questions about the role of editorial endorsements in journalism today.
The Los Angeles Times has a long history of endorsing candidates, a practice that has shaped its identity as a major voice in the media landscape. However, Soon-Shiong's rationale for not endorsing centers around the desire to avoid divisiveness in what he describes as a tumultuous election year. He believes that by refraining from taking a stance, the newspaper can better serve its readers by allowing them to make their own informed decisions.
As the fallout from this decision continues to unfold, it is essential to delve deeper into the implications for the newspaper, its editorial board, and the readership. This situation not only highlights the tensions within the Times itself but also reflects broader trends in media and public discourse.
- Times owner stated that his decision not to offer readers a recommendation would be less divisive in a tumultuous election year.
- Three members of the editorial board resigned over the move.
- His daughter claimed that the Gaza war influenced the decision not to endorse, but Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong refuted this, stating that she has no role in the L.A. Times.
A decision by the owner of the Los Angeles Times not to endorse in the 2024 presidential race — after the paper’s editorial board proposed backing Kamala Harris — has created a tempest, prompting three members of the board to resign and provoking thousands of readers to cancel their subscriptions.
Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong said that his decision not to offer readers a recommendation would be less divisive in a tumultuous election year.
“I have no regrets whatsoever. In fact, I think it was exactly the right decision,” he said in an interview with The Times on Friday afternoon. “The process was [to decide]: how do we actually best inform our readers? And there could be nobody better than us who try to sift the facts from fiction” while leaving it to readers to make their own final decision.
He said he feared that picking one candidate would only exacerbate the already deep divisions in the country.
Members of the editorial board protested that the non-endorsement was out of step with recent precedent at the newspaper, which has picked a presidential candidate in every election since 2008, and with The Times’ previous editorial position, which
