There’s plenty one could say about Patrick Soon-Shiong that I’ll allow would be accurate observations. Rich? Heck, yes. Has made billions in biotech and doesn’t shy away from defending how it can save the world. Civic-minded? Gotta give him that; at least he was willing to step up and bail out the Los Angeles TIMES from the self-inflicted wounds that the out-of-touch and inept management of TRONC and its progenitor Tribune inflicted upon it during its ownership reign (a fate shared by such other stalwart major market newspapers like the Chicago TRIBUNE, New York DAILY NEWS and Baltimore SUN, among others). Good father? No matter what you may think about his offspring’s opinions on all things Palestinian and Israel, the fact that he’s willing to stand by her to the extent that he admitted it factored into his newspaper’s decision to not endorse Kamala Harris is at least a sign he’s willing to support her more than just monetarily. Plenty of other nepobabies who lacked that have had to spend large sums of Daddy’s money on years of therapy.
But after his actions of Tuesday, where he took the bait of former CNN employee Oliver Darcy to debate on the record a declarative X-eet backing up a decision to address some of the other factors he cited in standing by his girl, one would have to call into question exactly what concrete information he was looking at to make it. Which, frankly, is an approach that as both an informed journalist and someone with access to insider information Darcy might have chosen as part of his interrogation.
Instead, as MEDIATE’s Sarah Rumpf shared as a Thanksgiving appetizer yesterday, this apparently is how that went down:
A spokesperson for Los Angeles Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong abruptly ended an interview with Oliver Darcy after the “conversation grew combative” when the billionaire was asked about his efforts to bring CNN commentator Scott Jennings onto his paper’s editorial board. On Tuesday, Soon-Shiong tweeted about Jennings and cheered Jennings’ acceptance of his invitation to join the Times editorial board.
In Tuesday’s edition of his newsletter Status, Darcy wrote about Soon-Shiong’s comments about Jennings, and how the above tweet led him to reach out to the paper for comment. His original attempt to get a statement from a Times representative ended up — to Darcy’s surprise — with Soon-Shiong’s personal spokesperson reaching out to see if Darcy wanted to interview the owner directly. After establishing that the interview would be on the record and without restrictions, Soon-Shiong was on the phone with Darcy about an hour later.
Soon-Shiong emphasized that he wanted the new board he was building “from scratch” to represent “all voices,” and he wanted “some truly critical thinkers, thoughtful people, onto the board,” who “can voice opinion, but I’m hopeful that people voice opinion based on the facts.”
And much as that statement may be irritating or incideniary to those with passionate beliefs, as someone running a for-profit media entity, he’s not wrong. Chasing as many eyeballs or thumbs as possible is essential to success, particularly for something that has been hemorraging audience and subscribers as dramatically as the TIMES , particularly in the last few years. Clearly his self-interested campaign to keep as many people as possible in perpetual fear of contracting COVID (sure helps sell those N95s his companies make money from) hasn’t been paying off to the extent he might have hoped.
But then the emperor’s new clothes began to come into view, as Rumpf’s narrative continued:
The discussion turned to Jennings, with Soon-Shiong reiterating his past comments and telling Darcy that he likes Jennings’ “interactions” on CNN, how he battles “five to one” against “the left,” and saying that he thinks Jennings is “respectful” and “thoughtful” in how he presents his arguments.
So yet another billionaire with a lot of time on his hands who X-eets about what and who he likes on TV. Sound familiar? At least at first blush Soon-Shiong appears to be eating healthier than some others.
It is at this point where Darcy shows his poker hand:
These remarks drew a skeptical response from Darcy, who wrote how his attempts to delve into this issue was when “our conversation grew combative”:
Whether or not you believe Jennings is respectful to his fellow panelists (and that is very debatable) is beside the point. The problem with Jennings is that his commentary is, at its core, dishonest. He may not outright blurt out lies, but he isn’t being truthful, either. His entire career hinges on defending a politician who subjects the populace to an endless stream of lies and conspiracy theories. Honest people are not in the line of work of defending dishonest people — especially when they are in such important positions of power.
It was when I attempted to broach this topic with Soon-Shiong that our conversation grew combative. He told me it was merely my “opinion” that Trump lies more than other politicians. I pushed back, noting that the depths of his dishonesty have been well-documented by fact-based news organizations. Soon-Shiong didn’t apparently appreciate that. He scolded me for making “a statement.”
And again, like it or not, there’s merit to Soon-Shiong’s beliefs. No one questions if Fat Orange Jesus is indeed a bastion of integrity (news flash: he’s not), but, again, he is far from the only politician who is so culpable, particularly just after an election cycle as combative as the one we have just endured (and if you happen to live in California, you still are, even with December just hours away).
Where Darcy missed a true opportunity to have a more constructive dialogue was failing to look at actual facts as to how impactful Jennings has been to the viewership of CNN. Overall numbers are way down, as has been widely reported, though not to the extent of still pure liberal MSNBC. But Jennings is not a lead personality; he is a roundtable contributor. Darcy spent enough time inside CNN to have had access to and enough understanding of detailed information to know who does drive viewership and engagement. Enough studies are regularly conducted to provide that sort of framing, likely ones that Soon-Shiong might have wanted to have had access to before doubling down on thinking what Jennings thinks actually matters.
And even if they aren’t, they’re easily commissionable. As I’ve implored someone at FOX News should have thought of doing in 2020, a simple audience flow study that can identify how many viewers watch both shows where Jennings is featured and competitors like FNC and Newsmax, currently or over a slight gap in time, could provide needed context to this debate. Numbers don’t lie, only the people who spin them do. And yes, there are plenty of pundits on both sides of the aisle who actually do that, and almost as consistently as Darcy purports Mr. Jennings does.
As a mere contributor, it’s hard to imagine that he’s making a material difference. Sunny Hustin doesn’t drive THE VIEW. Alan Colmes didn’t drive his show with Sean Hannity. And I really would question if having Scott Jennings involved with what the LOS ANGELES TIMES publishes will drive any more sales or incremental subscribers to make up for those who left in droves when they actually had the audacity to not stand behind their fellow Californian.
Instead, Darcy chose to stand on his own soapbox, one that unsurprisingly the NEW YORK POST’s Ariel Zilber amplified for her readers in her holiday gift article yesterday:
He said it was his job to “interrogate power” and that he will “never shy away from, respectfully, asking tough questions to those who have it.”
“That’s what I did when interviewing Patrick and what I would do again, if given the opportunity,” Darcy said.
Fine, Ollie, you do just that. But if and when that next time occurs, actually interrogating being armed with facts and data over and above high-minded and frankly time-worn pushback on fact-checking might just be a tad more impactful. In a media landscape being increasingly dominated by AI and a growing and broadening willingness among consumers to suspend or give lower priority to such high-minded tactics, you of all people should know that. I know you know how many people subscribe to Status, and I’m willing to bet my bottom dollar it’s still fewer than are reading the Los Angeles TIMES.
And as for you, Mr. Soon-Shiong, the next time you plan to hop on your own soapbox to support a role player as a savior, you might want to think about doing your own research or at least looking in the right places to find where in might already exist to better inform you if it’s a move that will actually benefit you. Shame that you and Ollie are in a kerfuffle. He could have really helped you be more accurate, not just more right.
Until next time…