In a striking move, Mariel Garza resigned from the Los Angeles Times after the owner halted the paper's tradition of political endorsements.
The Washington Examiner reported that Garza stepped down as the Editorials Editor of the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday due to a decision by the paper's owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong. Announced recently, Soon-Shiong's directive to not endorse any presidential candidate this election cycle marks a significant shift from the newspaper’s long-standing practice.
The Los Angeles Times had consistently endorsed Democratic candidates since 2008, which is further evidence of the mainstream media's capture by the Democrat Party.
This decision was notably poignant in the context of this year's election where Vice President Kamala Harris, a previous beneficiary of the paper’s endorsement for Senate in 2016 and for attorney general before that, is a prominent figure.
It appears that Garza and many others working at the Los Angeles Times were excited to finally endorse Harris but Soon-Shiong's intervention put an end to those plans in a major blow to Harris's campaign.
The owner's intervention sparked a backlash not only within the confines of the editorial board but also among the paper's subscribers.
Many expressed their disillusionment on social media, with some going as far as planning to cancel their subscriptions in protest against what they viewed as a disregard for the journalistic obligation to provide electoral guidance.
Garza articulated her dismay, quoting that the decision "...undermines the integrity of the editorial board and every single endorsement we make, down to school board races." She expressed concern that subscribers would doubt the independence of the endorsements and consider them potentially influenced by ownership.
Patrick Soon-Shiong responded to the controversy by stating that instead of direct endorsements, the editorial board was encouraged to analyze the records and policies of all candidates. He argued this approach would empower readers to make informed decisions without the paper seeming partisan.
Historically, the Los Angeles Times has played a pivotal role in local and national politics through its endorsements, which makes the recent shift all the more significant.
The editorial that Garza intended to publish supported a candidate, implied to be in opposition to Trump, aligning with the paper's previous criticisms of his administration.
However, in defending his choice, Soon-Shiong emphasized a non-partisan presentation of campaign information and policy effects from each presidential candidate, suggesting that a balanced factual report could replace traditional endorsement. He stated, “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 refusal to publish the prepared editorial endorsing a candidate prompted Garza's decision to resign.
She mentioned, “The non-endorsement...is complicity. I’m standing up by stepping down from the editorial board.” This sentiment reflects the depth of the ethical and professional turmoil sparked by the non-endorsement policy.
The editorial decision occurs amidst an interesting backdrop of decreased early voting in California.
Compared to the 2020 elections where a fifth of the voters had already cast their ballots by this time, there is a noticeable decline this election cycle. Over 2.8 million California voters have either voted early in person or mailed in their ballots, highlighting the potential impact of media endorsements.
The controversy raises questions about the role of media ownership in the editorial processes of major newspapers and its effect on public trust and media credibility.
Garza’s bold move to resign has ignited a broader industry conversation about the balance between editorial independence and owner influence, particularly in an age where public perception and media integrity are tightly interwoven.
As the story unfolds, the Los Angeles Times faces the challenging task of maintaining subscriber trust while navigating the complexities introduced by its owner's new editorial policy. The situation underscores the ongoing debate over the integrity of journalistic processes in shaping public opinion and electoral outcomes.