Source: David McNew / Getty / Los Angeles Times
One Los Angeles Times Editorials editor is standing on business and wants to be on the right side of history, while the owner of his former employer opts to stay neutral.
Mariel Garza said, “screw you guys, I’m out,” after the publications owner refused to let the Los Angeles Times Editorials board endorse a presidential candidate.
Speaking with the Columbia Journalism Review, Garza said she is “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.”
Patrick Soon-Shiong, the owner of the Los Angeles Times, told the editorial board earlier in the month the publication would not be making an endorsement, something it has been doing since 2008.
According to the CJR, the editorial board was set to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for president.
In her resignation letter, Garza wrote, “Presidential endorsements don’t really matter,” adding that “reality bit me like cold water on Tuesday when the news rippled out about the decision not to endorse without so much as a comment from LAT management, and Donald Trump turned it into an anti-Harris rip.”
She wasn’t kidding. The Trump/Vance campaign immediately sent an email, calling the Los Angeles Times decision the “latest blow to Harris-Walz.” “Even her fellow Californians know she’s not up for the job.”
Garza continued that the decision not to endorse “makes us look craven and hypocritical, maybe even a bit sexist and racist. 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 US Senate?”
Patrick Soon-Shiong Says A Whole Bunch of Nothing
Shiong took to X, formerly Twitter, to try and explain his decision not to endorse a presidential candidate:
So many comments about the @latimes Editorial Board not providing a Presidential endorsement this year. Let me clarify how this decision came about. The Editorial Board was provided the opportunity to 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. 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. Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision. Please #vote.
In an election where one candidate, Donald Trump, is praising Hitler for having loyal generals and being blatantly racist, you would think you want your paper to stand side by side with the other candidate to keep a fascist out of the White House.
Welp.
You can see more reactions in the gallery below.
2. Mmmhhmmmm
3. Good move
