>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Garza felt that the endorsement was crucial, particularly given the paper’s previous editorial stance. “I didn’t think we were going to change our readers’ minds—our readers, for the most part, are Harris supporters,” Garza explained. “We’re a very liberal paper. I didn’t think we were going to change the outcome of the election in California.”
However, Garza expressed frustration with Soon-Shiong’s approach, saying the paper’s silence could be interpreted as a lack of commitment to the principles it had long espoused. “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.”
The Trump campaign wasted no time in responding to the Los Angeles Times’ decision not to endorse Harris. In a statement, they referred to the paper’s choice as “the latest blow” to Harris’s candidacy. “In Kamala’s own home state, the Los Angeles Times—the state’s largest newspaper—has declined to endorse the Harris-Walz ticket, despite endorsing the Democrat nominees in every election for decades,” the campaign said. “Even her fellow Californians know she’s not up for the job. The Times previously endorsed Kamala in her 2010 and 2014 races for California attorney general, as well as her 2016 race for US Senate—but not this time.”
The Trump campaign’s statement plays into a broader narrative that Harris is losing support, even in her home state. The timing couldn’t be worse for Harris, whose poll numbers have remained lackluster heading into the general election.
Patrick Soon-Shiong, known for rescuing the Los Angeles Times from the brink of bankruptcy in 2018, has largely stayed out of the newsroom’s editorial decisions—until now. Soon-Shiong explained his reasoning behind the decision not to endorse any candidate on X (formerly Twitter), saying that he had given the editorial board a clear directive to outline both the positive and negative policies of each candidate.
“So many comments about the @latimes 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,” Soon-Shiong wrote.
TRUMP LOVES IT: Get the Presidential Blanket FREE Today! Supplies Running Out – Grab Yours NOW! 🕒👇
Soon-Shiong emphasized that his goal was to provide readers with a balanced view of both candidates’ policies, allowing them to make an informed decision. However, his approach was clearly not shared by Garza and others on the editorial team.
The Los Angeles Times’ decision to sit out of the presidential endorsement game is a significant break from tradition, and Garza’s resignation puts a spotlight on the tension between the newsroom and its owner. For years, the Times has positioned itself as a staunchly liberal publication, and the sudden decision not to endorse Harris has raised questions about the paper’s future editorial direction.
In a time when news outlets are increasingly scrutinized for their political leanings, the L.A. Times’ decision to remain neutral in one of the most polarizing elections in modern history has left many wondering whether it reflects a broader shift in the media landscape—or simply the growing influence of ownership over editorial content.
As the 2024 election heats up, one thing is clear: the battle over media endorsements isn’t just about who the papers back—it’s about who’s really calling the shots behind the scenes.
