The Los Angeles Times will not be making a presidential endorsement in this election, the first time the paper has stayed silent on a presidential race since 2004. But the decision not to endorse a candidate was not made by an editor. The paper’s billionaire owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, stepped in to forbid the paper from doing so.
The move sparked a furor over the lack of editorial freedom (Semafor, 10/22/24; KTLA, 10/22/24; Adweek, 10/23/24). The paper lost 2,000 subscribers, and editorials editor Mariel Garza resigned in protest, along with two other staffers, including a Pulitzer Prize winner (Guardian, 10/25/24).

Guardian (10/25/24): “The lack of transparency around Soon-Shiong’s reasons for not allowing his paper to make a presidential endorsement has left journalists in the Los Angeles Times’ newsroom frustrated and confused.”
The LA Times was widely expected to support the Democrat, Vice President Kamala Harris, a Southern California resident and former senator from the state. The paper’s editorial board enthusiastically supported Joe Biden in 2020 (9/10/20) and Hillary Clinton four years before that (9/23/16).
According to news reports, the paper had been preparing an endorsement until Soon-Shiong reached across the wall that is supposed to separate the business and editorial wings of a newspaper. He tried to rationalize his decision, according to the Guardian:
“I think my fear is, if we chose either one, that it would just add to the division,” Soon-Shiong told Spectrum News, noting he was a “registered independent.”
On Wednesday, Soon-Shiong tweeted that he had asked the editorial board to instead publish a list of positive and negative attributes about both of the presidential candidates, but that the board had refused.
Soon-Shiong said that the dangers of divisiveness in American politics was highlighted by the responses to his tweet about his decision not to endorse, saying the feed had “gone a little crazy when we just said, ‘You decide.’”
And the LA Times is not alone. The Jeff Bezos–owned Washington Post will also issue no presidential endorsement, for the first time since 1980 (NPR, 10/25/24). Former editor-in-chief Martin Baron called the move “cowardice,” telling NPR:
Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate the Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.
Alarms about editorial freedom

Stat (11/21/16): “Soon-Shiong called it an ‘incredible honor’ to dine with Trump, who ‘truly wants to advance health care for all.’”
Soon-Shiong, who bought the LA Times from Tronc in 2018, attempted to portray himself as a defender of the free press against attacks from then-President Donald Trump (CNBC, 9/7/18). But Soon-Shiong—a doctor who made a fortune in the for-profit medical industry (New Yorker, 10/25/21)—was not shy about his ambitions for a top health position in the Trump administration (Stat, 11/21/16, 1/25/17).
Is Soon-Shiong trying to make nice with Trump? One thing we know about him is that he’s not big on paying taxes; “He hasn’t paid federal income tax in five consecutive recent years,” ProPublica (12/8/21) reported.
He’s also not overly concerned about ethical niceties; Stat (7/20/17) has raised questions about conflicts of interest in his medical business and how they might impact patients. A Politico investigation (4/9/17) of Soon-Shiong’s research foundation found widespread self-dealing:
Of the nearly $59.6 million in foundation expenditures between its founding in 2010 and 2015, the most recent year for which records are available, over 70% have gone to Soon-Shiong–affiliated not-for-profits and for-profits, along with entities that do business with his for-profit firms.
This isn’t the first time Soon-Shiong’s intervention at the paper has raised alarms about editorial freedom. The Daily Beast (10/22/24) reported that earlier this year “executive editor Kevin Merida resigned after Soon-Shiong tried to block a story that accused one of his friends’ dogs of biting a woman in a Los Angeles park.”
Layoffs at the Times earlier this year also sparked outrage from trade unionists and journalists. “A delegation of 10 members of Congress warned Soon-Shiong in a letter that sweeping media layoffs could undermine democracy in a high-stakes election year,” reported Los Angeles Magazine (1/23/24).
There was also a racial element, the Times union said in a statement (Editor and Publisher, 1/24/24):
It also means the company has reneged on its promises to diversify its ranks since young journalists of color have been disproportionately affected. The Black, AAPI and Latino Caucuses have suffered devastating losses.
Bezos is far better known than Soon-Shiong; while it’s not reported that he directly intervened to stop a Post endorsement, like at the LA Times, NPR noted that Bezos depends on harmonious interactions with the federal government, as the company he founded, Amazon, depends on government contracts. Conflict-of-interest questions have long surrounded his control of the paper (FAIR.org, 3/1/14, 3/14/18, 9/19/19; CJR, 9/27/22; Guardian, 6/12/24; CNN, 6/18/24).
Helping a fellow billionaire

NPR (10/25/24): Elon Musk “has become one of the leading boosters of baseless claims that Democrats are bringing in immigrants to illegally vote for them — a conspiracy theory that Trump and other Republicans have made core to their narratives about the 2024 election.”
It’s hard to ignore that in blocking endorsements expected to go to Trump’s opponent, billionaire owners are using their media power to help a fellow billionaire. With the Washington Post, readers can easily assume that Bezos cares more about not offending the powerful than its now-laughable slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”
Bill Grueskin (X, 10/25/24), a professor at Columbia Journalism School, said that these endorsements are “unimportant politically” because “few votes would be swayed”—the Los Angeles area and the Beltway are solidly blue. But there’s an ominous factor here, he said, because “the billionaire owners are (intentionally or not) sending a signal to the newsrooms: Prepare to accommodate your coverage to a Trump regime.”
Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, is likewise using his wealth and his ownership of the social media network Twitter (rebranded as X) to boost Trump (PBS, 10/21/24; NPR, 10/25/24).
And Republican megadonor and billionaire Miriam Adelson “shelled out $95 million to the pro-Donald Trump Preserve America PAC during its third quarter,” Forbes (10/15/24) reported. Her late husband bought the Las Vegas Review-Journal in December of 2015 (AP, 12/17/15), and as the New York Times (1/2/16) reported:
Suspicions about his motives for paying a lavish $140 million for the newspaper last month are based on his reputation in Las Vegas as a figure comfortable with using his money in support of his numerous business and political concerns, said more than a dozen of the current and former Review-Journal staffers and local civic figures who have worked closely with him.
Big money has played an enormous part in US elections, especially since the Citizens United decision eviscerated limits on campaign spending (PBS, 2/1/23). “A handful of powerful megadonors have played an outsized role in shaping the 2024 presidential race through mammoth donations toward their favored candidates,” Axios (10/23/24) reported. These megadonors “skew Republican,” the Washington Post (10/16/24) reported.
Much of the press in the United States has, correctly, portrayed a second Trump term as a threat to democracy and a move toward corrupt autocracy, eroding institutions like the free press and independent justice system (Atlantic, 8/2/23; New York Times, 9/21/24, 10/3/24, 10/22/24; MSNBC, 10/22/24; NPR, 10/22/24). Yet the intervention of Soon-Shiong and his fellow moguls is an indication that our media are already not in democratic hands. Far from it; they are in the hands of the billionaire class. And it is sure to have an impact on this election.






The right thing to do
For the so very many wrong reasons
Aren’t you presuming to know the motives of the LA Times owner? I do agree with you that it was probably not a bad decision, but this whole critique seems to be an indictment based more on who the owner is than the merits of his decision.
Both parties are deaf to the policies favored overwhelmingly by the public, and favoring one over the other seems to be foolish in that regard. Add to that the almost lockstep unity in the media in its dismissal of Trump as a legitimate representative of a large swath of the electorate, and an endorsement for Kamala Harris who has been a lackluster candidate would serve as confirmation of that. I don’t know enough about the LA Times owner to condemn him for it wanting to appear as biased as most of the mainstream media.
LA is is not important. The major media {TVs) outlets, including social media and MTVs are Jewish-controlled and are endorsing the live-streamed murderous Genocide in Palestine.
And here we have Gary, just another hate spewing antisemite going on record with the well worn Jewish controlled media conspiracy. Next please.
If I can infer from your response that you are a supporter of Israel, then I think you will agree that the support and bankrolling for the murders being committed by the Israeli state will do more to promote antisemitism all over the planet than any hate-filled individual.
News outlets should not be in the business of endorsing candidates. As for Harris, she is part of an administration that has the power to stop the genocide in Gaza and to engage in de-escalation and diplomacy. Harris has indicated she will do neither of those things if elected. Why endorse such a person?
This is about taxes pure and simple. Harris has said she will make the ultra wealthy pay their fair share. Well, they don’t want to, so they go against everything they say they believe in because of their own greed.
Humm…a newspaper that has never endorsed a Republican presidential candidate in it’s entire history announces it will not endorse Harris or Trump for president. They did endorse Jimmy Carter and Mondale way back when yet won’t be backing Harris. Perhaps they learned a lesson, can read leaves and don’t want to be on the losing side.
Mainstream media has been stepped on by their corporate owners for decades. That’s why top-flight mainstream, investigative journalist, Robert Parry, who broke the Iran Contra story left mainstream journalism to form Consortium News (which just went down today, hopefully, just a temporary server problem and not censorship). But there are many good reasons in this case not to endorse either of these two mainstream candidates, foremost being that the Biden-Harris Administration vetoed the UN call for an arms embargo to stop a genocide. Candidate Harris has assured that she will not support an arms embargo, a position that places her to the right of Ronald Reagan.
Senator Kamala Harris in 2017 supported Trump’s ditching of Obama’s Iran Nuclear deal. Really, as much as I think billionaire shouldn’t exist (no, they shouldn’t all be poisoned! The system shouldn’t allow such wealth disparity!), the idea of listing the pros and cons of both is a better idea than endorsing either.
However, the best idea would be to look outside the top-two (worst two) parties for one to endorse. Jill Stein and Butch Ware are far more in tune with the populace than either major party which both represent their megadonors rather than their constituents.
Once people have 999,999 dollars they turn evil. Until that point the system works flawlessly.
This article is irresponsible when it doesn’t mention that the LA Times’ owner’s daughter convinced him to withhold the paper’s endorsement because of Harris’ support for genocide. I don’t think that this was necessarily done in good faith but it does need to be stated.