Business
L.A. Times owner's decision not to endorse in presidential race sparks resignations, questions
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 has been ardently opposed to former President Trump.
Editorials Editor Mariel Garza resigned Wednesday as a result of the decision. Editorial board members Robert Greene and Karin Klein tendered their resignations from The Times the following day. Greene won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing in 2021 for his writing about criminal justice reform.
“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 U.S. Senate?” Garza wrote Wednesday in her letter of resignation to Times Executive Editor Terry Tang. “The non-endorsement undermines the integrity of the editorial board and every single endorsement we make, down to school board races.”
“I’m disappointed by the editorial [board] members resigning the way they did. But that’s their choice, right?” Soon-Shiong said in the interview.
The medical technology billionaire, who bought The Times in 2018, posted on the social media site X on Wednesday that he believed he had offered his opinion writers a reasonable alternative to a traditional endorsement. He said they should “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,” he added. “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.”
“The Editorial Board chose to remain silent,” Soon-Shiong contended in his X post, “and I accepted their decision.”
The three journalists who resigned said they were not silent but, rather, disagreed with the owner’s proposal.
“The ‘opportunity’ to instead present a both-sides analysis would properly be done by the newsroom, not by an editorial board, whose purpose is to take a stand and defend it persuasively,” Greene said in a statement.
“I left in response to the refusal to take a stand,” Greene wrote, “and to the incorrect assertion that the editorial board had made a choice.”
For many news consumers, the very existence of editorial writers and editorial boards is a point of confusion.
They are generally veteran journalists who write editorials that express the position of their news outlet. Though written by one individual, the resulting essays are usually not signed because they indicate they express the consensus of the board.
At The Times, the eight-member editorial board is overseen by Tang, though Garza led day-to-day operations. Soon-Shiong sits on the board, though he attends its thrice-weekly meetings only occasionally. It is understood that, as owner of The Times, he is entitled to change editorials or prevent them from being published.
Several individuals familiar with The Times’ board say that Soon-Shiong has intervened only on occasion, including in the 2020 presidential primary season, when he decided that The Times should not name a favorite.
The Times’ stable of in-house columnists and the paper’s editorial stances are generally liberal. The owner said Friday that he has been pushing for some time to bring more conservative and centrist voices into the mix. He noted that Republican political strategist Scott Jennings has recently been writing more opinion pieces for The Times, which he said was a bonus for readers.
He said he hoped the conflict over the presidential endorsement would lead to “deep reflection” about the role of journalists.
“Is this just groupthink, brainwashing or what, on either side?” he said. “I think we stand for more than that. We should be an organization that stands up and says the facts,” and also presents views across the political spectrum. He added: “I think that the country needs that desperately.”
The Chandler family owned The Times for more than a century, from its founding in 1881. During that long stretch, the family and Times leadership set a stolidly conservative agenda. The newspaper routinely endorsed Republicans for president and most other offices.
The Times backed former Vice President Richard Nixon, a Californian and a Republican, for president in 1972. But after the Watergate scandal brought President Nixon down in 1974, The Times editorial board agreed to no longer endorse in presidential races.
That policy held through eight elections, until 2008, when The Times urged readers to vote for Democrat Barack Obama. It endorsed Democrats in every presidential election since then.
The newspaper backed former Vice President Joe Biden over then-President Trump in the 2020 election. Soon-Shiong made no effort to change the editorial board’s decision. After the Democrat’s victory became clear, The Times owner posted a message on social media: “Congratulations President-Elect Biden and Vice-President Elect Harris. Historic day. Now time for our nation to heal. #PresidentElect #AmericaDecides.”
Four years earlier, Soon-Shiong congratulated Trump on his victory. “Incredible honor dining w/Pres-elect @realDonaldTrump last night,” he wrote on the site then known as Twitter. “He truly wants to advance #healthcare for all.”
A native of South Africa who grew up under apartheid, Soon-Shiong has spoken out passionately in the past about his belief in civil rights. But he has been less vocal publicly about his thoughts on elected officials.
He told Spectrum News this week that some might “look upon me or our family as ultra-progressive or not.” But he said he considered himself a political independent, adding in his interview with The Times that — despite speculation — his stand is not based on any singular issue or intended to favor either of the major party candidates.
Soon-Shiong said he has heard from people who supported his decision as well as many who strongly opposed it.
“That’s the whole value of democracy. You can voice your opinion, but I hope they understand by not subscribing that it just adds to the demise of democracy and the fourth estate,” he told Spectrum.
Many other newspapers continue to endorse in the presidential race. The New York Times recently published an editorial warning about the dangers of a second term for Trump.
But the Washington Post decided, for the first time in 36 years, not to pick a candidate for the White House this year, prompting one board member to resign Friday.
As with the Los Angeles Times decision, the Post’s non-endorsement was met with an immediate backlash from many readers and threats of subscription cancellations. Former Post Editor Martin Baron criticized the Washington paper’s move, saying Friday that “history will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.” Post Publisher Will Lewis said the paper would allow readers to make up their own minds.
The Trump campaign quickly tried to use word of the L.A. Times’ non-endorsement to its advantage. “Even her fellow Californians know she’s not up for the job,” the Republican’s campaign said.
That position flew in the face of statements from Garza and others about their intention to back Harris.
A little more than two months after Trump took office in 2017, the editorial board published a series of scathing essays under the headline: “Our dishonest president.” One editorial described Trump’s initial actions as “a train wreck” that “will rip families apart, foul rivers and pollute the air, intensify the calamitous effects of climate change and profoundly weaken the system of American public education for all.”
Several thousand customers, including actor Mark Hamill, dropped their subscriptions this week in protest over the non-endorsement.
The owner’s intervention did not sit well with other Times employees, including many of those who work for the news pages. The morale of many of the workers already had been at a low ebb, given two rounds of layoffs — including the departure of 115 journalists early this year, more than 20% of the newsroom — following a period of growth and hiring since 2017.
The Times — like virtually every other American newspaper — has been struggling to find a viable financial model, given the massive downsizing of print advertising. Soon-Shiong’s willingness to underwrite tens of millions of dollars of losses per year has made cuts at The Times, though painful, less extreme than at the some of country’s biggest newspaper chains.
The union representing Times journalists, which has been without a contract and pay raises for more than two years, demanded that management give a fuller explanation of the failure to endorse.
“Those of us who work in the newsroom, rather than on the Editorial Board, do not have a position on whether a presidential endorsement should have been made,” said a letter to Soon-Shiong signed by nearly 200 Times journalists. “However, we all expect The Times to be transparent with readers.”
Longtime columnist Robin Abcarian said in an interview that it was “patently absurd” for the newspaper that had written dozens of news stories and opinion pieces about the dangers of Trump to belatedly pull back from endorsing Harris.
“Refusing to endorse for president at a moment when democracy is imperiled is a betrayal of what our editorial pages do: tell the truth, say what we believe and why,” Abcarian said.
Abcarian sympathized with readers lashing out at the paper’s ownership. But she also called on subscribers to keep supporting the hundreds of journalists who played no role in the decision.
“The Los Angeles Times is so much more than a single endorsement,” she said. The staff “still manages to turn out extraordinary coverage.”
In an X post, leaders of the union representing Times journalists agreed. “Before you hit the cancel button,” they wrote, “that subscription underwrites the salaries of hundreds of journalists in our newsroom. Our member-journalists work every day to keep readers informed during these tumultuous times. A healthy democracy is an informed democracy.”
Nike is cutting about 1,400 jobs in its operations division, mostly from its technology department, the company said Thursday.
In a note to employees, Venkatesh Alagirisamy, the chief operating officer of Nike, said that management was nearly done reorganizing the business for its turnaround plan, and that the goal was to operate with “more speed, simplicity and precision.”
“This is not a new direction,” Mr. Alagirisamy told employees. “It is the next phase of the work already underway.”
Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company, is trying to recover after missteps led to a prolonged sales slump, in which the brand leaned into lifestyle products and away from performance shoes and apparel. Elliott Hill, the chief executive, has worked to realign the company around sports and speed up product development to create more breakthrough innovations.
In March, Nike told investors that it expected sales to fall this year, with growth in North America offset by poor performance in Asia, where the brand is struggling to rejuvenate sales in China. Executives said at the time that more volatility brought on by the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices might continue to affect its business.
The reorganization has involved cuts across many parts of the organization, including at its headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. Nike slashed some corporate staff last year and eliminated nearly 800 jobs at distribution centers in January.
“You never want to have to go through any sort of layoffs, but to re-center the company, we’re doing some of that,” Mr. Hill said in an interview earlier this year.
Mr. Alagirisamy told employees that Nike was reshaping its technology team and centering employees at its headquarters and a tech center in Bengaluru, India. The layoffs will affect workers across North America, Europe and Asia.
The cuts will also affect staffing in Nike’s factories for Air, the company’s proprietary cushioning system. Employees who work on the supply chain for raw materials will also experience changes as staff is integrated into footwear and apparel teams.
Nike’s Converse brand, which has struggled for years to revive sales, will move some of its engineering resources closer to the factories they support, the company said.
Mr. Alagirisamy said the moves were necessary to optimize Nike’s supply chain, deploy technology faster and bolster relationships with suppliers.
A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.
The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.
The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.
The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.
It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.
However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.
Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.
Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.
“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.
In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”
The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.
“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.
Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.
Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.
Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.
The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.
But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.
Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.
A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.
“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .
Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.
Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.
Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.
Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.
Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.
But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.
Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.
While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.
“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.
It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”
Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.
“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.
The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.
Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.
Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”
Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.
Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.
“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”
For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.
“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”
-
Oregon1 minute ago
Jets Select Oregon TE Kenyon Sadiq with 16th Overall Pick in 2026 NFL Draft
-
Pennsylvania7 minutes agoDemocrat Josh Shapiro tests political muscle in swing-state Pennsylvania’s midterms
-
Rhode Island13 minutes agoSilver Alert issued for missing man in Cumberland, RI
-
South-Carolina19 minutes agoTwo from South Carolina charged with murder after Massachusetts man found dead in trash can
-
South Dakota25 minutes ago
SD Lottery Millionaire for Life winning numbers for April 23, 2026
-
Tennessee31 minutes agoAlabama Baseball Capitalizes on Free Passes in 12-8 Win Over Tennessee
-
Texas37 minutes agoTexas attorney raises concerns as investigation continues into 2 home explosions on North Side
-
Utah43 minutes agoUtah road rage cases peak in March, data shows