As a long-time member of the Los Angeles Times editorial board, I’ve always respected owner Patrick Soon-Shiong’s right to influence our editorial direction. However, his last-minute decision to withdraw our endorsement of Kamala Harris reveals a troubling contradiction to the neutrality he claims to uphold.
In June 2023, I was abruptly laid off via a mass email, along with 73 other colleagues. This impersonal approach made me question whether the management had lost its sense of decency in handling staff changes, or if they simply didn’t care. After four months, I returned to assist with the election season, a critical time requiring careful research and thoughtful endorsements—one of which typically boosts subscriptions significantly.
Despite my lengthy tenure with the Times, I found myself resigning last week over the decision not to endorse Harris. I have devoted half my life to this paper, and this latest issue pushed me to walk away for good.
While I acknowledge Soon-Shiong’s authority over editorials, his choice to pull the endorsement at the last minute stands in stark contrast to true neutrality. If he had decided in advance not to endorse presidential candidates, that would have been a valid position. But making such a decision when the election landscape is already set only serves to create an unspoken editorial stance that unfairly casts Harris in a negative light, equating her to Donald Trump.
Our editorial board has been critical of Trump for years without any pushback from ownership. In a progressive state like California, endorsing a candidate like Harris felt like the natural course of action. The absence of an endorsement not only surprises readers but risks undermining her campaign in key battleground states.
Soon-Shiong’s call for the board to produce a “neutral analysis” of Harris and Trump further deepened my conviction to resign. Our news team excels at impartial reporting, providing essential information for readers. Editorials, however, are meant to take a stand based on sound analysis, which is why we have a separate opinion staff. Suggesting a neutral analysis of two candidates with vastly different roles—vice president and president—seems misguided at best.
Why this sudden shift to neutrality, especially when we had already taken positions on numerous other races? In a time when our voices are crucial, why silence us on the presidential race? Soon-Shiong’s claim that “the Editorial Board chose to remain silent” is misleading; we were not silent, but rather blocked from expressing our views. This decision has led to the resignation of nearly half the editorial board.
While I understand the complexities involved in editorial decisions, it’s essential for leadership to own the consequences of their choices. The stakes in this election are too high for anything less than full transparency and integrity.
Having authored two books, including *Rethinking College: A Guide to Thriving Without a Degree*, I remain passionate about education and the role of media in shaping public discourse. My resignation reflects a deep-seated belief in the importance of editorial independence and accountability—a principle I hope will guide the Los Angeles Times moving forward.
