Share this comment
About the L.A. Times, are they so good? Can you explain this? semafor.com/article/10/…
[quote:]
Last week, the LA Times published its electoral endorsements for the 2024 election. And while the paper noted in its first line that it is “no exaggeration to say this may be the most consequential election in a generation,” that was the only me…
About the L.A. Times, are they so good? Can you explain this? https://www.semafor.com/article/10/22/2024/los-angeles-times-wont-endorse-for-president
[quote:]
Last week, the LA Times published its electoral endorsements for the 2024 election. And while the paper noted in its first line that it is “no exaggeration to say this may be the most consequential election in a generation,” that was the only mention of the presidential race in its endorsements.[...]
But according to two people familiar with the situation, executive editor Terry Tang told editorial board staff earlier this month that the paper would not be endorsing a candidate in the presidential election this cycle, a decision that came from the paper’s owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, a doctor who made his fortune in the healthcare industry.
The L.A. Times is relatively left-wing on their endorsements compared to most mainstream papers. I had not noticed that they didn't endorse in the presidential race, which is a nonevent here compared to state and local ballot measures and some key House races. The Emhoff family lives in this city so Kamala is now almost an Angelena (though she grew up in Oakland and served as San Francisco's D.A.). Certainly she is a California "favorite daughter". I don't know why they didn't endorse, but I think endorsements in the highest profile race are less useful than in local races where people have less information about the people or measures.
I think the Times is a relatively good paper because they try to cover local and regional issues. Also they have some excellent columnists from different communities and perspectives. I have learned a lot by reading people like Gustavo Arellano, Robin Abcarian, Frank Shyong and others, with Steve Lopez covering elders' issues and Patt Morrison with stories of SoCal history. No paper in the 21st century can do everything well because of the economic constraints of publishing, but they do OK mostly. I don't see the NYT very often nowadays, so I can't make the most informed commentary on that paper.
I love the LA Times and feel happier when reading it than when reading the NYT or WaPo. Fewer things to annoy me, less sense of self-importance, more sense that life's worth living. That said, I'm disturbed by the failure of the LAT to endorse Harris. This is the kind of existential election in which everyone, and of course every newspaper, should make clear where they stand. The failure here is not the fault of the editorial writers, who apparently had an endorsement ready to go, but of the paper's billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong. I don't what what his problem is, since he's said nothing. The failure to endorse is a great disappointment and a historic mistake.