Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kilroy69

L.A. times editor throws a fit and resigns over Kamala non-endorsement.

Recommended Posts

 

“The non-endorsement undermines the integrity of the editorial board and every single endorsement we make.”

Ohhhhh that is funny. She thinks that the public looks at them as those who have integrity. That is a fallacy. 40 percent of the population has no faith in the media. Instead of endorsing ANY candidate why not just encourage people to vote. It is not the job of the media to endorse ANYONE.

 

Atop editor at the Los Angeles Times, California’s largest newspaper, resigned Wednesday over a growing rift surrounding that paper’s decision to not make a presidential candidate endorsement in the run-up to the November election. Word of editorials editor Mariel Garza’s resignation first hit social media early Wednesday and has since been confirmed by the Columbia Journalism Review.

 
 

Garza’s resignation from the LA Times comes after reports of direct influence over the editorials section by Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the biotech billionaire who’s owned the newspaper since 2018. Soon-Shiong reportedly blocked plans for the newspaper’s editorial arm (which operates independently from the newsroom) to endorse Kamala Harris for president over Donald Trump, as reported by Semafor earlier this week.

Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review that she disagreed with the editorial interjection by the owner and felt that “standing up” against the decision was necessary. “I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent,” Garza told Sewell Chan (a previous editorial page editor for the LA Times) of the Columbia Journalism Review.

“We do not comment on internal discussions or decisions about editorials or endorsements,” a spokesperson for the LA Times told SFGATE earlier this week when asked about the lack of a presidential endorsement.

 

“It makes us look craven and hypocritical, maybe even a bit sexist and racist,” reads Garza’s resignation letter, reprinted by the Columbia Journalism Review. “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.”

Soon-Shiong, meanwhile, took to X on Wednesday to offer an explanation for the non-endorsement. “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,” the post reads in part.

“Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision,” the post concludes.

The Los Angeles Times has endorsed a presidential candidate every election since 2008, and this year, the editorial board did make many other down-ballot endorsements, including Adam Schiff, D-Burbank, over Steve Garvey in the U.S. Senate race. The editorials team has also vocally opposed Donald Trump in a number of ways, including a “Top 10 reasons not to vote for Donald Trump” opinion piece by columnist Jackie Calmes on Oct. 20. One state over in Nevada, the Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed Donald Trump for president.

While California is a deeply blue state politically, a formal endorsement for president still carries considerable weight — particularly during this election, given Harris’ California upbringing and career. The Trump campaign and other media outlets quickly positioned the lack of an endorsement as a negative for the Harris campaign, with Newsweek saying that the vice president was “dealt a blow” by not receiving an endorsement from the largest newspaper in her home state. Other people called the decision to not endorse a candidate “deplorable.”

 

This is not the first time that Soon-Shiong, who purchased the paper for $500 million in 2018, has exerted pressure that led to the resignation of a high-ranking editor. In January of this year, Kevin Merida, the paper’s top editor, stepped down over concerns surrounding Soon-Shiong’s attempt to influence a coming news story about an acquaintance of the owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kilroy69 said:

She thinks that the public looks at them as those who have integrity.

One of Trump’s great innovations is taking negative events & turning it into positive personality themes. Liberals Triggered, the press as Enemies of the People, they’re Trying to Stop The Donald But They Can’t, OMB, TDS, Deep State, Russia Russia Russia, etc. Ten years in it’s playing the hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Papers have always endorsed candidates. Republicans and Democrats were both endorsed in much of what I saw. Papers and media also often wrote negative pieces about policies and candidates.

One person made it a thing to whine about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a moron.  This dipsh!t just highlighted the problem with media.....their politicization..... this is why we do not trust them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Throws a hissy fit and quits a high paying job in a dying industry 

 

They might be able to get some sweet per diem money from Complex. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

“It makes us look craven and hypocritical, maybe even a bit sexist and racist,” reads Garza’s resignation letter, reprinted by the Columbia Journalism Review.

That's some deep, nuanced analysis by this journalismer.  If you don't endorse the black woman, you are sexist and racist?  Eesh...  :( 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

That's some deep, nuanced analysis by this journalismer.  If you don't endorse the black woman, you are sexist and racist?  Eesh...  :( 

As Homer Simpson would say. She is SMRT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kilroy69 said:

I thought that was Liz Cheny at first. 

That type all looks the same my friend.  Man hating, joyless hags with no sense of humor 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In a post on the social media platform X that did not directly mention the resignation, LA Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong said the board was asked to do a factual analysis of the policies of Harris and Republican former President Donald Trump during their time at the White House.

 
Additionally, “The board was asked to provide (its) 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,” he wrote. “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.”
 
So instead of doing what they were asked they decided to try to do an endorsement of one candidate instead of doing an analysis of both. Yet the Liberal Editor could not accept this and is trying to make this look like she was being silenced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Editorial portions of newspapers aren’t supposed to endorse candidates or political opinions? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Editorial portions of newspapers aren’t supposed to endorse candidates or political opinions? 

That is NOT what they were asked to do. They were asked to not give the impression they are biased by giving both candidates policies a run down. They could not manage to do that without injecting their own personal politics into the situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kilroy69 said:

That is NOT what they were asked to do. They were asked to not give the impression they are biased by giving both candidates policies a run down. They could not manage to do that without injecting their own personal politics into the situation. 

This was the editorial department of the LA Times though as opposed to the news department, right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

This was the editorial department of the LA Times though as opposed to the news department, right?

 

Ok so when the owner of the company says I do not want your opinion on who to endorse. I want you to give a non-biased rundown of policy THAT is what you do. Newsroom or Editorial department. Your job is to do what the owner or board tells you to do. If not you can kick rocks and be replaced with someone else who can follow simple focking directions OR start your own newspaper.  To be fair I would prefer NO media endorse ANYONE for office. It has nothing to do with Trump, Harris or this election. It is not the medias job to endorse candidates. It is their job to report on them. Once you endorse a candidate as a news org it allows you to be biased for your candidate because you feel like your fighting the good fight. She even made it a point to mention how she felt this election is differen and trump is dangerous. Which is pretty much the standard line for any democrat. Democracy is on the line every 4 years according to them and each time you do not vote dem it dies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

That's some deep, nuanced analysis by this journalismer.  If you don't endorse the black woman, you are sexist and racist?  Eesh...  :( 

This is the result of the perpetual vitcim mindset constantly pushed by the left. Vicim mentality has kept many minorities in a form of slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kilroy69 said:

Ok so when the owner of the company says I do not want your opinion on who to endorse. I want you to give a non-biased rundown of policy THAT is what you do. Newsroom or Editorial department. Your job is to do what the owner or board tells you to do. If not you can kick rocks and be replaced with someone else who can follow simple focking directions OR start your own newspaper. 

Yeah going to disagree here.

Don’t really know the structure of the LA Times but if they have an editorial dept and the owner is telling these people what to say, then yeah I can see the editorial person deciding they want to quit. What is wrong with that?

Politically now you get a Trump campaign saying that the LA Times won’t endorse Kamala - her own hometown paper!!111!!! Oh muh gerd!

This move by the owner if anything is helping diminish the reputation of the paper, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, thegeneral said:

Yeah going to disagree here.

Don’t really know the structure of the LA Times but if they have an editorial dept and the owner is telling these people what to say, then yeah I can see the editorial person deciding they want to quit. What is wrong with that?

Politically now you get a Trump campaign saying that the LA Times won’t endorse Kamala her own hometown paper!!111!!! Oh muh gerd!

This move by the owner if anything is helping diminish the reputation of the paper, not the other way around.

Giving them a structure and telling them what to say is not the same thing. He gave them the structure that he wanted them to use and they could have said anything about the policies for both. Good or bad. Instead that was too confining for her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kilroy69 said:

Giving them a structure and telling them what to say is not the same thing. He gave them the structure that he wanted them to use and they could have said anything about the policies for both. Good or bad. Instead that was too confining for her. 

I read that he outright told them not to endorse a candidate. Then she quit and said why. So what’s the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

I read that he outright told them not to endorse a candidate. Then she quit and said why. So what’s the problem?

And to make matters worse, they were to do a "both sides" presentation (as if the candidates were of roughly equal merit).

The L.A. Times has a 50+ year history of endorsing a candidate for President. If not for the recent ownership change of the paper, it would have again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make sure I understand...

If you support a female candidate because she is a woman, you are NOT a misandrist

If you support a male candidate because he is a man, you ARE a misogynist.

If you support a black candidate because he/she is black, you are NOT a racist.

If you support a candidate because they are white, you ARE a racist.

 

Seem about right?  :dunno: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

This is the result of the perpetual vitcim mindset constantly pushed by the left. Vicim mentality has kept many minorities in a form of slavery.

And if there is someone who has never played the victim it is Donald Trump.

Again- there is no way you all believe the things you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a newsroom that presents news. You have an editorial board that gives opinion.

That the editorial department wants to do their thing independently - in this case endorse a candidate - does not seem unusual.

If anything she is showing some integrity TBH in quitting some cush job, so not really getting how this is a bad thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

Just to make sure I understand...

If you support a female candidate because she is a woman, you are NOT a misandrist

If you support a male candidate because he is a man, you ARE a misogynist.

If you support a black candidate because he/she is black, you are NOT a racist.

If you support a candidate because they are white, you ARE a racist.

 

Seem about right?  :dunno: 

We are about 25 years past Foxworthy stand up comedy joke construction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I'm not sure what world some of you live in- newspapers have (at least as long as I've been alive) given endorsements to candidates. This whole story screams like either someone doing a favor or someone trying to create a story to drive likes to the paper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

We are about 25 years past Foxworthy stand up comedy joke construction. 

If 99% of your posts support Leftism, you MIGHT BE a Leftist.  :thumbsup: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jerryskids said:

If 99% of your posts support Leftism, you MIGHT BE a Leftist.  :thumbsup: 

The forum here is predominantly conservative and I like needling people....if this forum were predominantly liberal- whoever the liberal version of you would be- would be calling me a MAGA weirdo by how much I mocked them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sean Mooney said:

Again I'm not sure what world some of you live in- newspapers have (at least as long as I've been alive) given endorsements to candidates. This whole story screams like either someone doing a favor or someone trying to create a story to drive likes to the paper

For the record, I've only been commenting on this pinnacle of journalists being concerned that the lack of an endorsement implies misogyny and racism.

I don't particularly care if a leftist rag wants to endorse its candidate.  It was interesting to learn though that the owner is, if not a Trump fan, at least not a TDS sky screamer like his editorial staff.  :thumbsup: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jerryskids said:

For the record, I've only been commenting on this pinnacle of journalists being concerned that the lack of an endorsement implies misogyny and racism.

I don't particularly care if a leftist rag wants to endorse its candidate.  It was interesting to learn though that the owner is, if not a Trump fan, at least not a TDS sky screamer like his editorial staff.  :thumbsup: 

I wasn't speaking to you directly about that comment- I didn't want to name people directly because too many here get their feels hurt right away.

But there are people acting like this is just the news media showing itself by talking about endorsing a candidate- which again, happens all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Just to make sure I understand...

If you support a female candidate because she is a woman, you are NOT a misandrist

If you support a male candidate because he is a man, you ARE a misogynist.

If you support a black candidate because he/she is black, you are NOT a racist.

If you support a candidate because they are white, you ARE a racist.

 

Seem about right?  :dunno: 

I think her point is that they were not endorsing a candidate in this election, when they had in all others, so perhaps it would look odd and some could create their own narrative as to why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RLLD said:

What a moron.  This dipsh!t just highlighted the problem with media.....their politicization..... this is why we do not trust them.

The problem being the owner playing a heavy hand in the decision not to endorse her.

Newspaper endorsements typically reflect a community's political leaning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

I think her point is that they were not endorsing a candidate in this election, when they had in all others, so perhaps it would look odd and some could create their own narrative as to why.

She seems not concerned about the lack of an endorsement per se, but more concerned with the lack of a specific endorsement.

Unless your position is that she'd be fine if the owner made them endorse Trump.  :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jerryskids said:

She seems not concerned about the lack of an endorsement per se, but more concerned with the lack of a specific endorsement.

Unless your position is that she'd be fine if the owner made them endorse Trump.  :lol: 

I think that is exactly what she was saying. She wanted to make it clear that the editorial portion of the paper is being giving direction as to not endorse anyone.

The Trump campaign made a statement about the how the LA times wasn’t supporting Kamala as they have in all her other political races (which interestingly enough wasn’t true - not interesting that they focked that up because they always do - but that the paper endorsed her opponent when she ran for AG).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Just to make sure I understand...

If you support a female candidate because she is a woman, you are NOT a misandrist

If you support a male candidate because he is a man, you ARE a misogynist.

If you support a black candidate because he/she is black, you are NOT a racist.

If you support a candidate because they are white, you ARE a racist.

 

Seem about right?  :dunno: 

You could run for office as a Democrat   😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

I think that is exactly what she was saying. She wanted to make it clear that the editorial portion of the paper is being giving direction as to not endorse anyone.

The Trump campaign made a statement about the how the LA times wasn’t supporting Kamala as they have in all her other political races (which interestingly enough wasn’t true - not interesting that they focked that up because they always do - but that the paper endorsed her opponent when she ran for AG).

Wouldn't that be hypocritical of them and give them even less credibility that they endorse her for president, but wouldn't endorse her for AG?  Not a good look for the LAT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Twinsdad said:

Wouldn't that be hypocritical of them and give them even less credibility that they endorse her for president, but wouldn't endorse her for AG?  Not a good look for the LAT.

No. That was in 2010. They endorsed her for Senate after she had that gig. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

No. That was in 2010. They endorsed her for Senate after she had that gig. 

 

:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kilroy69 said:

"In a post on the social media platform X that did not directly mention the resignation, LA Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong said the board was asked to do a factual analysis of the policies of Harris and Republican former President Donald Trump during their time at the White House.

 
Additionally, “The board was asked to provide (its) 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,” he wrote. “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.”
 
So instead of doing what they were asked they decided to try to do an endorsement of one candidate instead of doing an analysis of both. Yet the Liberal Editor could not accept this and is trying to make this look like she was being silenced. 

So she was asked to do her job and either wouldn't or couldn't.  Resignation seems like the right course of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×