LA Times refuses to endorse Kamala

Sounds personal with the owner of the Times. Are they allowing their dog to crap on his lawn during walks?

 

That has got to sting. Blimey.

 

Seems that way. Endorsing Schiff but not Harris who have the same politics sounds like spite lol.

 

The decision not to endorse was made by the owner of the paper who overruled its editorial board which was prepared to endorse Harris.
L.A. Times’ Billionaire Owner Patrick Soon-Shiong Blocks Endorsement in Presidential Race

 

Interesting read. Sounds like the owner and the daughter are a blast.

Los Angeles Times won’t endorse for president | Semafor

It wouldn’t be the first time since he bought the paper in 2018 that owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong had overruled the wishes of the paper’s editorial board. In 2020, the paper met with Democratic candidates for president for interviews with the intention of making a pick in the race. But after deciding to endorse Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic presidential primary, at the last minute Soon-Shiong overruled its leadership and said there would be no endorsement in the primary race (the paper endorsed Joe Biden in the general election).

The paper also raised eyebrows over several local endorsements it made in recent election cycles of candidates supported by Soon-Shiong’s daughter Nika, whose progressive politics on racial justice and the war in Gaza have at some points heartened and emboldened some on staff and and other points caused friction. At the time, the paper told Politico that there was no involvement from Nika Soon-Shiong in the endorsements.

Still, it wouldn’t be the first time that the LA Times has declined to endorse candidates in a presidential general election. From the mid-1970s until 2008, the paper declined to endorse any presidential candidates following internal dissent over the decision to endorse Richard Nixon for reelection months after the Watergate break in, a decision the publisher Otis Chandler said he later came to regret. Before that, the Times had a near century-long streak of Republican presidential endorsements dating back to the paper’s founding in 1881.

 

It would be kinda funny if the lack of endorsement is because of Kamala's position on Israel/Palestine. "No Votes for Genocide" - too conservative to endorse!

 

Well, there goes California.

 

Trump's bullying probably got to him.

 

You try so hard to be a provocateur and fail so frequently. Hey, although your performance to date is sad, maybe practice makes perfect! You keep plugging away, okay?

Answer these questions:

a. what is the import of a citizen not endorsing a candidate?

b. what is the import of an a citizen not endorsing a candidate while simultaneously not endorsing the other candidate?

c. what is the import of a citizen not endorsing a candidate when the majority of his peers do?

Because you obviously haven't thought this through, I'll help. Historically, a newspaper endorsement carried significant weight. This is because they are viewed as authoritative voices in their communities and on national issues. When a endorsement is made, the implication is that it is an informed opinion, backed by journalistic investigation, credibility, and expertise. The editorial boards may conduct interviews, research policy positions, and debate the merits of candidates before reaching a consensus. Do you think the owner of the LA Times did any of this?

 

Tea leaves

 

Elon is throttling negative Trump posts on Twitter. The LA Times owner who is a Trumper vetoed his editorial board about Harris.

One billionaire at a time marching us towards an oligarchy. Thanks Mark Cuban for being a real one.

 

Good to see you finally do a post instead of just a drive-by neg.

Nice meme.

 

He's a free speech absolutist.

That or a liar.

 

There is nothing serious about this forum, it's all a bunch of people shitting on the other side, not listening in the process. Not one mind has been changed here. What's the point other than to make fun of it?

 

When one side is enthusiastically supportive of a convicted felon and sexual assaulter, who tried to criminally overturn an election.......there's a far more valid reason to hold anyone supportive of that in low regard.

Conversely, the other side could just possibly be said to support a weak candidate with disagreeable policy ideas.

Which is worse?

 

That’s the idea! Welcome sport, fitting right in.

 

Like I said yesterday, you just can't seem to post without name calling. At least this post isn't as vile as most.