L. A. Times editor resigns over ownership refusal to endorse Harris

[RoBo1988]

MSN

Ownership wants to be impartial.

 

[rambot]

I would understand. If they didn't endorse him and he won, he would certainly be vengeful against them.




Which is what is said about fascists.

 

[Aldebaran]

I would understand. If they didn't endorse him and he won, he would certainly be vengeful against them.




Which is what is said about fascists.

Is it your reasoning that they didn't endorse Harris because they're afraid of Trump, and it couldn't possibly be because they don't believe Harris is worth their endorsement?
Did they endorse Trump instead? If not, maybe they're not so afraid of getting his "revenge" after all.
So why do you create such a narrative?
But give it some thought: Why should a news organization endorse a candidate for any office if they want to have a reputation for NOT taking sides, and want to have a reputation for being fair in their reporting?

 

[rambot]

Is it your reasoning that they didn't endorse Harris because they're afraid of Trump, and it couldn't possibly be because they don't believe Harris is worth their endorsement?
Did they endorse Trump instead? If not, maybe they're not so afraid of getting his "revenge" after all.
So why do you create such a narrative?
But give it some thought: Why should a news organization endorse a candidate for any office if they want to have a reputation for NOT taking sides, and want to have a reputation for being fair in their reporting?

MAny news organizations have done it before..

Including the LA Times.
Los Angeles Times used to endorse only Republicans for president. What changed?


Otherwise, it's just how trump would describe himself anyways. Why get angry or disagree? He's a vengeful person.

 

[Aldebaran]

MAny news organizations have done it before..

Including the LA Times.
Los Angeles Times used to endorse only Republicans for president. What changed?


Otherwise, it's just how trump would describe himself anyways. Why get angry or disagree? He's a vengeful person.

Why shouldn't I disagree with your cooked up narrative? It lacked anything other than fearmongering.
Besides, it looks like it's not Trump's side that we need to worry about getting revenge: DANGEROUS POST-ELECTION NARRATIVE: James Carville calls on Democrats to take up arms against Trump regime if Kamala loses

 

[RoBo1988]

If I was that editor, and watched the Anderson Cooper Town Hall last night, I would have been very comfortable with a "no endorsement" for VP Harris.

 

[Bobber]

But give it some thought: Why should a news organization endorse a candidate for any office if they want to have a reputation for NOT taking sides, and want to have a reputation for being fair in their reporting?

Yeah and what a shock that a news organization doesn't want to be the news but report the news! In my books they deserve a medal for taking that position.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think concerns about "Revenge from Trump if he wins" could likely only be a secondary concern.

If you run a news outlet, and you want to maintain the patina of objectivity & credibility and not be viewed as exclusively "political pundits", you should be staying out of the "endorsing one side over the other" game.


When it comes to news media, while obviously bias and accuracy/inaccuracy are two separate metrics... both can result in a publication not being taken as seriously.


There's a reason why outlets like "The Daily Beast" and "The Washington Examiner" aren't held in the same regard/esteem as outlets like Axios and Reuters.

I would imagine the owner of the LA Times probably wants to be viewed as being more in line with the latter and not the former.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The LA Times Editorial Board has endorsed candidates up and down the ballot for 2024 as well as for state ballot propositions and local measures.
In the same manner, it was prepared to do so for Kamala Harris as well.
The owner said no, interfering with the editorial independence of the newspaper.
The editorials editor resigned.
Two more editors have also now resigned.

 

[rambot]

Why shouldn't I disagree with your cooked up narrative?

Because it shows you are not engaged with the reality of words Trump has said. You are not obliged to deal with the reality of what Trump says
but it doesn't mean he didn't say it.

It lacked anything other than fearmongering.

TRump is a vengeful person. Do you agree or disagree with that statement.

I think concerns about "Revenge from Trump if he wins" could likely only be a secondary concern.

If you run a news outlet, and you want to maintain the patina of objectivity & credibility and not be viewed as exclusively "political pundits", you should be staying out of the "endorsing one side over the other" game.


When it comes to news media, while obviously bias and accuracy/inaccuracy are two separate metrics... both can result in a publication not being taken as seriously.


There's a reason why outlets like "The Daily Beast" and "The Washington Examiner" aren't held in the same regard/esteem as outlets like Axios and Reuters.

There are news papers and news outlets all over the US that do this; major and reputable ones. I feel like I've seen endorsements from news organizations every election cycle through my whole life

Why is there suddenly a concern with it?

I don't know if I've ever even heard this "objectivity argument" before this with the LA Times.

 

[Aldebaran]

The LA Times Editorial Board has endorsed candidates up and down the ballot for 2024 as well as for state ballot propositions and local measures.
In the same manner, it was prepared to do so for Kamala Harris as well.
The owner said no, interfering with the editorial independence of the newspaper.
The editorials editor resigned.
Two more editors have also now resigned.

It would seem that those editors are too intolerant of an employer who won't vote or endorse the same way they do.
Good riddance to them. If they're that intolerant of those who don't think they way they do, they shouldn't be working for a news organization.

 

[Aldebaran]

Because it shows you are not engaged with the reality of words Trump has said. You are not obliged to deal with the reality of what Trump says
but it doesn't mean he didn't say it.

I heard what he said, but I didn't have to add anything to it to make it sound like he said something he didn't say.

TRump is a vengeful person. Do you agree or disagree with that statement.

Are you asking me if I agree with your opinion?

There are news papers and news outlets all over the US that do this; major and reputable ones. I feel like I've seen endorsements from news organizations every election cycle through my whole life

Why is there suddenly a concern with it?

I don't know if I've ever even heard this "objectivity argument" before this with the LA Times.

And it's little wonder how different news organizations get different bias ratings from allsides.com, but the most respected ones would rate in the center--which means they report on what is going on and concentrate on accuracy rather than pushing their own views. If a news outfit endorses Harris, why should you expect them to report accurately about either candidate?

 

[rambot]

Are you asking me if I agree with your opinion?

I'm sorry if that was too difficult to understand.

 

[RoBo1988]

Add the WAPO to the non endorsement category.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/25/nx-s1-5165353/washington-post-presidential-endorsement-trump-harris?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

 

[essentialsaltes]

It would seem that those editors are too intolerant of an employer who won't vote or endorse the same way they do.

The employer's vote or endorsement was not at issue.
The editorial board made an editorial decision to write an editorial endorsing Kamala Harris.

The owner said no, interfering with the editorial independence of the newspaper.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Add the WAPO to the non endorsement category.

Like the case in the OP, the Washington Post Editorial Board composed an endorsement.
The newspaper ownership prohibited its publication.

 

[Aldebaran]

The employer's vote or endorsement was not at issue.
The editorial board made an editorial decision to write an editorial endorsing Kamala Harris.

Here's how the article starts out, and it's clear that the newspaper has the right to allow or block what its employees write. Notice the part where it says, "citing a need for non-partisan analysis instead." That should be important to any news publication, and it's not "interfering" when they make that decision. It's their absolute right to filter anything that damages their reputation.


"The Los Angeles Times' editorials editor, Mariel Garza, has resigned following the newspaper's decision to withhold an endorsement for Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race.

The move came after the paper's owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, blocked the editorial board's plan to publicly back Harris, citing a need for non-partisan analysis instead.

Garza's departure has sparked discussions on journalistic integrity and the role of media in political discourse.

In an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review, Garza said, "I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent. In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I'm standing up."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

TRump is a vengeful person. Do you agree or disagree with that statement.


There are news papers and news outlets all over the US that do this; major and reputable ones. I feel like I've seen endorsements from news organizations every election cycle through my whole life

Why is there suddenly a concern with it?

I don't know if I've ever even heard this "objectivity argument" before this with the LA Times.

Trump's certainly vengeful, but that hasn't stopped literally every left-leaning outlet from bashing him nonstop for the past 10 years, so the idea that they'd be afraid to endorse his opponent for that reason alone is questionable.

If these outlets are continuing to make endorsements of other Democrats, but just excluding Harris from that (and it's not for reasons of wanting to remain objective on a contentious election), then that leaves, what I feel is, the only other logical explanation...

Which is, she's not taken the "progressive-approved position" on the topic of Israel/Gaza.

It would seem as if the progressive wing of her own party may have boxed her in a corner.

 

[Aldebaran]

Trump's certainly vengeful, but that hasn't stopped literally every left-leaning outlet from bashing him nonstop for the past 10 years, so the idea that they'd be afraid to endorse his opponent for that reason alone is questionable.

If these outlets are continuing to make endorsements of other Democrats, but just excluding Harris from that (and it's not for reasons of wanting to remain objective on a contentious election), then that leaves, what I feel is, the only other logical explanation...

Which is, she's not taken the "progressive-approved position" on the topic of Israel/Gaza.

It would seem as if the progressive wing of her own party may have boxed her in a corner.

Even The Young Turks channel bashes Harris over Israel/Gaza. They really do not like Israel at all, and can't contain themselves over anything positive Biden/harris has done in support of Israel. It could cost harris the election.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Here's how the article starts out, and it's clear that the newspaper has the right to allow or block what its employees write. Notice the part where it says, "citing a need for non-partisan analysis instead."

Editorial endorsements are necessarily partisan. None of the other 2024 races, from school board to Adam Schiff necessitated a need for non-partisan analysis instead of an endorsement.

Additionally, Mariel Garza disputes Soon-Shiong's statement: “What he outlines in that tweet is not an endorsement, or even an editorial,” she said, adding that she had not received a request for such an analysis.

That should be important to any news publication

Newspapers have clear separations between the newsroom and the editorial board. A non-partisan analysis is appropriate for a news story comparing the two campaigns. As Garza correctly notes, that is not suitable for the Op/Ed page.

It remains a fact that the issue is not the owner's personal vote or endorsement.