Staff Reports
The recent implosion at the Los Angeles Times has all the drama of a high school play, with editors throwing down their hats just because their paper chose not to endorse Kamala Harris. In a shocking plot twist, the paper’s owner, billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, cut off this mad dash toward leftist endorsement, leaving a few delicate egos bruised. It’s hard to believe that the so-called bastions of journalism have finally remembered that their job isn’t just to echo the Democratic party line. It’s almost as if they temporarily forgot that there’s a whole world outside their echo chamber.
In a shocking turn of events, two members of the editorial board decided to join Mariel Garza in quitting, all over the paper’s reluctance to endorse Harris for president. Karin Klein and Robert Greene stormed off, dramatically claiming that Soon-Shiong’s silence was an affront to their beliefs. Klein lamented that this “wordless” rejection seemed to suggest Harris was somehow flawed. It’s hilarious to think that these editorial board members would rather nothing than protect their fragile political sensibilities while pretending to uphold journalistic integrity.
LA Times Editorial Chief Resigns After Owner Refuses Kamala Harris Endorsementhttps://t.co/cVbCZVciWJ
— CASSIUS (@CassiusLife_) October 25, 2024
What is truly striking about this saga is that the editorial board had a golden opportunity to present a balanced view of both Harris and Trump, yet they danced around it like it was a hot potato. They opted to play the silence game instead, perhaps because they wanted to avoid the reality that Harris is, at best, a subpar candidate. But rather than admit their choice was politically motivated, they opted to cast themselves as the victims of a media villain. Soon-Shiong, however, stands firm, proving the Los Angeles Times has been bleeding subscribers long before these resignations. Losing this self-righteous trio hardly seems like the paper’s largest concern.
Society may be accustomed to the mainstream media treading lightly around the big names in liberal politics, yet the Los Angeles Times’ refusal to endorse Harris raises more interesting questions than it answers. While leftists cry foul and speculate that fear of Trump’s wrath is behind this lack of endorsement, the reality is likely much simpler: They just don’t think Harris is cut out for the job. Those on the progressive side may find it far too hard to believe that editors could look past their biases long enough to recognize that a candidate might not have enough substance to lead a lemonade stand, let alone the nation.
Meanwhile, as memories fade and the 2024 election looms nearer, Harris’ candidacy seems more about her being a figurehead than a serious presidential contender. If her connections to establishment media remain solid, she may yet find a way to stay afloat, even without the blessing of a couple disgruntled editors chasing their latest moral outrage. With plenty of others still willing to brandish pom-poms in support of Harris, it’s unlikely that her campaign will go down quietly. However, one important truth hangs in the air: calling out incompetence does not equate to an endorsement. Perhaps it’s time for the Los Angeles Times and its editorial board to rediscover a little objective journalism instead of trying to play kingmakers.
