There’s a lot of outrage being leveled at what I have frequently referenced as the Left Angeles TIMES lately, and for a change it has nothing to do with the otherwise omnipresent issue that seems to obsess the gang of remotely based “experts” routinely devoting thousands of words to the latest “alarming” wastewater trends.
Here’s how THE HILL’s Julianne Ventura summed it all up late yesterday after a couple of days of breaking news that its “competitors” gleefully lapped up:
The Los Angeles Times editorials editor resigned Wednesday after the publication’s owner reportedly decided against making an official presidential endorsement — specifically for Vice President Harris — this year.
“I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent. In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up,” Mariel Garza said in a phone call, per the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR).
In her resignation letter, which CJR published in the article, Garza said she had grappled with the paper’s decision not to endorse Harris until she realized it mattered to her.
“Of course, it matters that the largest newspaper in the state—and one of the largest in the nation still—declined to endorse in a race this important. And it matters that we won’t even be straight with people about it,” Garza wrote, per CJR.
Garza’s decision has attracted far more attention and accoldade than almost anything else she has done during her apparently significant tenure with the TIMES. Her biography, still readily available on its website, still describes her in current terms and further notes:
Previously, she was a deputy editor of the editorial page and, prior to that, an editorial writer focusing on state government and politics, plastic trash, public health and other topics.
I wouldn’t have expected a paper that now insists on publishing day-old box scores for any local team’s games that end after 4 pm local time to have been any more prompt in updating her CV.
But the story didn’t end there. Rather than speaking through his remaining lackies, her now (apparently) former boss felt compelled to offer his side of the story, naturally on the theoretical global “town square” rather than through the actual communication portal he does own. Per Ventura:
L.A. Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong, pushed back on Garza’s claims in a Wednesday post on the social platform X, saying the editorial board had been “provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis” of Harris and Trump’s positive and negative policy decisions and how they impacted the country while at the White House.
The board was also asked to provide its understanding of the policies mentioned in the candidates’ current campaigns and any of their potential impacts, Soon-Shiong added in the post.
“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,” Soon-Shiong wrote. “Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent, and I accepted their decision. Please #vote.”
In other words, “we report, you decide”. Sound familiar?
Maybe it’s because in a business, particularly in the Luddite-like practice of still attempting to publish physical media, that is struggling to still exist the leanings of those that are actually still paying attention are increasingly moving toward a somewhat less passionate and parochial viewpoint than the one that Garza decided to fall on her sword for?
Indeed, it was THE WASHINGTON POST’s Kelsey Ables that was one of the few objective independent writers that even attempted to frame Garza in an understandable context amidst the dozens of outlets that weighed in over the past 48 hours:
Garza, who joined the Times from the Sacramento Bee in 2015, told CJR that she had drafted an outline of an editorial endorsing Harris and was caught off guard when she learned this month that the paper wasn’t going to take a stance. In the resignation letter, she said that she told herself endorsements don’t matter — particularly in a state like California — and that the paper had practically endorsed Harris already with editorials describing Trump as unfit.
Fact is, in a business sense, endorsements don’t matter. Since Soon-Chiong purchased the TIMES from the remnants of what was once the omnipotent TRIBUNE company in 2018 their daily readership, per STATISTA, has fallen by -75% (just under 418,000 in January 2019 to just under 106,000 in September 2023). And I know from my social media feed alone that number’s gonna drop even further based upon the many declarations of cancellations I’ve personally seen over the past few hours.
But Soon-Chiong apparently revealing his true personal colors and reluctance to embrace even the apparent voice of his constituency is hardly unique. Heck, even Ables’ boss, still publishing a paper whose masthead declares “DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS”, took this stand earlier this year, as CNN’s Oliver Darcy reported:
Jeff Bezos, the billionaire owner of The Washington Post, broke his silence Tuesday on the mounting turmoil within his newspaper, expressing support for maintaining high standards at the storied publication as questions swirl over the ethical integrity of its new publisher, Will Lewis.
“I know you’ve already heard this from Will, but I wanted to also weigh in directly: the journalistic standards and ethics at The Post will not change,” Bezos said in an email to top newsroom leaders, signaling support for Lewis, though not explicitly.
Bezos added in the memo, which was obtained by CNN, that “it can’t be business as usual” at The Post, which has been plagued by financial and audience woes.
Sure, most of you know how Rupert Murdoch thinks, few better than moi. And if you’re a regular reader of this space, you also know how the new owner of the BALTIMORE SUN (another failed former Tribune publication) thinks. As well as who he is.
But any student of journalism history knows this all didn’t start with them. Heck, the patriarch of one of the few surviving family businesses left in the industry kinda got the ball rolling more than 125 years ago:
William Randolph Hearst, the powerful owner and editor of the New York Journal, was one of the most colorful, influential, and outspoken figures involved in activities surrounding Spanish-American War. When he was only 24 years old, Hearst’s career as a publisher began. In 1887, with help from his father’s mining fortune, Hearst became the owner and operator of the San Francisco Examiner. Hearst fashioned his paper after Pulitzers’ sensationalist approach and flashy style.
In 1895, Hearst turned to the east coast for his next journalistic endeavor and purchased the New York Journal. As the owner of the Journal, Hearst entered the fiercely competitive world of New York journalism. Positioned against his former mentor Joseph Pulitzer, Hearst recruited staff away from the World and continued to copy Pulitzer’s style. The Cuban Revolution of 1895, came at a perfect time for Hearst and his New York Journal. With the eyes of a businessman and a politician, Hearst saw the events in Cuba as a way place himself and his paper on center stage.
So with all due respect to Ms. Garza, I wonder what journalism curriculum she may have had that probably didn’t gloss over these facts. She probably should have known what to expect even back in Sacramento, and I suspect she’s just as capable of tracking down subscriber trends as I am.
When I see physical copies of the Los Angeles TIMES these days in the outlets that still carry newspapers, they’re often side-by-side with Spanish language dailies and pure right-leaning drek like THE EPOCH TIMES. Guess which bin has more leftover copies? Yep, that would be Garza’s former stomping ground.
And so-called “alternative newsweeklies” like the VILLAGE VOICE or the sorely missed LA WEEKLY? Mere memories.
The storied downtown monolith building where the pre-Soon-Chiong TIMES, the one that the Chandler family proudly owned and grew and even was its home as Sam Zell and company tore that legacy apart? Vacant. The sterile low-slung home that you can see from the nondescript 105 freeway offers zero character and, it would appear, integrity, now houses what remains of the brand.
I’m anything but supportive of ownerships like Soon-Chiong’s, and I’ll be curious how the latest salvo that was fired last night that Ventura reported on pans out:
On Wednesday night, the Los Angeles Times Guild issued a statement saying Soon-Shiong was “unfairly assigning blame” for the decision not to endorse.
“We are deeply concerned about our owner’s decision to block a planned endorsement in the presidential race. We are even more concerned that he is now unfairly assigning blame to Editorial Board members for his decision not to endorse,” the Guild’s Unit Council and Bargaining Committee said in the post, adding that they are “pressing for answers from newsroom management.” “The Los Angeles Times Guild stands with our members who have always worked diligently to protect the integrity of our newsroom,” the statement said.
But I’m long past having much hope for fairness and integrity. Only those with extraordinarily deep pockets and personal agendas can apparently afford to throw good money after bad in an industry as archaic and unpromising as journalism. And the Los Angeles TIMES doesn’t even have its answer to Wordle or a robust array of daily podcasts to save it. I’m resigned to accepting the fact that in order to get my still-insatiable fix for puzzles I can fill in with a pen and the few remaining agate type sports statistics I have to take the front section –all six pages of it most days–along with the package.
Maybe my standards are much lower than Garza’s. So no, I’m not quite ready to join my friends in cancelling my LOS ANGELES TIMES subscription outright. But I will gladly remind them that I’m typically using the front section for little more than to mop up my coffee spills. Especially on the days when the latest wastewater statistics dominate it.
Now if those box scores ever get dropped completely…that’s another story.
Until next time…