The Los Angeles Times editorial board has stunned political observers by breaking with a two-decade-long tradition of endorsing Democratic presidential candidates, opting instead to stay silent in the upcoming election. This decision marks a significant shift, raising questions about the motivations behind this move at a time many see as crucial for the nation.
Ignoring a Critical Election
The editorial board explained its various endorsements, emphasizing, “No exaggeration to say this may be the most consequential election in a generation.” Yet, despite this strong statement, the board conspicuously chose not to weigh in on the presidential race.
The LA Times had previously thrown its support behind Kamala Harris in her campaigns for California Attorney General in 2014 and U.S. Senate in 2016. However, this election cycle, the board’s decision has left a noticeable void, leading to speculation about what might have influenced such an unexpected departure from their usual practices.
Speculation Over Influence
While some social media users interpreted the decision as a reflection of former President Donald Trump’s rising popularity, a report by Semafor’s Max Tani offered a different perspective. The report suggested that Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner of the LA Times, pressured the editorial board into this unprecedented silence.
A spokesperson for the Times declined to provide any insight, stating, “We do not comment on internal discussions or decisions about editorials or endorsements.”
Further reports by Semafor alleged that Soon-Shiong, who amassed his wealth in the health care industry, previously interfered with editorial decisions. During the 2020 Democratic primary, the paper had considered endorsing U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, but under Soon-Shiong’s influence, the endorsement was withdrawn. Ultimately, the LA Times chose not to back any candidate in the primary, though they did endorse then-candidate Joe Biden for the general election.
Fallout and Backlash
The LA Times’ history of endorsing Kamala Harris in her earlier political races didn’t sway this decision, leading to frustration among some readers. The silence from the editorial board has even prompted backlash from the left, with some subscribers choosing to end their relationship with the paper in protest.
“Of all the elections to sit out. The Los Angeles Times decision to not endorse for president this year made my decision to cancel my subscription extremely easy. They’ve coward [sic] in fear over Trump’s ‘Enemies will be punished’ threats. Gross, weak and pathetic,” tweeted lawyer Sean Nyberg, expressing his discontent.
A Shift from Tradition
Before 2008, the LA Times had a complicated relationship with presidential endorsements, stemming from internal disputes during the Watergate scandal in the 1970s. Before that period, the paper had almost exclusively endorsed Republican candidates, a practice that traced back to its founding in 1881.
This new stance—or lack thereof—marks yet another chapter in the editorial board’s evolving role during a polarizing time for American politics. Whether influenced by internal pressures or other factors, the decision to remain neutral is causing ripples among loyal readers and political analysts alike.
