In a significant shift, the editorial panel of the Los Angeles Times has decided not to partake in the endorsement of any presidential candidate for the upcoming election. It has been reported that this is a first since they resumed the practice by endorsing then-Senator Barack Obama in the 2008 election. Interestingly, the decision traces back to the newspaper’s proprietor himself, suggesting a redirection in the newspaper’s standard procedures.
The Los Angeles Times has been known to influence readers’ perspectives through its editorial endorsements, a long-standing practice dating back to the 1880s. However, it took a pause in this tradition after the final endorsement in 1972, only resuming nearly four decades later, during the Obama campaign in 2008. As the political landscape continues to transform, so has the viewpoint of this prestigious publication.
The owner of the newspaper, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, a man of considerable wealth accrued from the healthcare sector, opted for this unprecedented step. His authority directly impacted the editorial board’s decisions, which will undoubtedly affect the perception of the newspaper in both local and national observers’ eyes.
Following the discontinuation of the endorsement practice in 1972, the Times eventually rekindled the tradition by endorsing Barack Obama. Over the past years, the newspaper has exclusively lent its endorsement to Democratic presidential contenders, demonstrating a perceptible alignment with the party’s ideals, at least since 2008.
In the recent past, Particularly after Obama, the L.A. Times has shown a clear inclination towards endorsing Democratic presidential candidates. This preference has been recognized and analyzed by political pundits and readers alike, marking a significant chapter in the newspaper’s political engagement.
The report makes it apparent that paradigm-shifting decision-making isn’t new to Dr. Soon-Shiong since his acquisition of the newspaper in 2018. A notable instance took place during the prelude to the 2020 Democratic primary, where Dr. Soon-Shiong’s decision reverberated throughout the Times’ editorial board.
Interestingly, during the Democratic primary of 2020, the editorial board of the L.A. Times initially leaned towards endorsing Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. However, in an unexpected twist, they were directed otherwise by the owner himself, leading to a break from their endorsement custom in the primary race.
Inserted into moments of great political tension were the interventions by Dr. Soon-Shiong, whose override decisions began to define the publisher’s evolving approach towards their political stance. His intervention during the Democratic primary became among the key decision-making moments recorded during the newspaper’s modern history.
Ready to step away from past endorsement traditions, Dr. Soon-Shiong encouraged an abstention within the primaries’ race. Strikingly, the L.A. Times took a turn in their narrative by choosing not to endorse any candidate for the primaries as a result of his intervention.
What entailed was an instance of change within the editorial board’s predictable series of endorsements. After the primaries, the board retreated from their abstention and threw their weight behind Joe Biden as their selection for the presidency.
Days after this endorsement saga, the L.A. Times unveiled a fresco of their endorsement selections. They named a variety of candidates that they advocated for in the upcoming elections, both within the state of California and nationwide.
Recently, the newspaper made their political preferences known for positions beyond the presidency. They released a comprehensive list of endorsements for the U.S. House and Senate races. This comprised mostly of Democratic candidates, reflecting the paper’s historical inclination.
Despite not endorsing a presidential candidate this current election cycle, the Los Angeles Times still played an indispensable role in guiding Californian voters. They continued to provide recommendations for other highly contested seats, such as those in the U.S. House and Senate.
The endorsement strategy may have been revised for the presidential race, but the Times’ commitment to providing its readership with insightful analysis and coverage enables them to make informed choices. Despite the absence of a traditional endorsement, the newspaper remains a vital tool in shaping the political landscape.
While the scale may have shifted, the commitment and responsibility of the Los Angeles Times to engage in political discourse haven’t. It continues to act as a bridge between the power corridors and people, providing crucial insights, even if it has chosen not to endorse a presidential candidate.
Patterns are meant to be broken. While some expect the Los Angeles Times to opt back into tradition, the steps taken towards a new era of unbiased reporting, devoid of endorsement, could pave the way for a more diversified engagement, impacting the newspaper industry as a whole. The future will reveal how these changes reverberate within its readership and the media world at large.