Posted on 10/26/2024 11:12:46 AM PDT by MtnClimber
When President Trump branded these propaganda outfits the enemy of the people, he was right.
A few days ago, the Los Angeles Times was in focus when the paper's proprietor, Patrick Soon-Shiong, prevented the paper’s editorial board from endorsing Kamala Harris for president.
The L.A. Times is still the largest paper in California and one of the largest in the U.S.
The paper exclusively endorsed Republican presidential nominees from its founding in 1881 through 1972 when Richard Nixon ran for re-election in 1972. The paper's pubhlisher, surfin' Otis Chandler, scion of the wealthy Chandler family, was said to have regretted making that endorsement as the Nixon administration went down in the Watergate scandal.
After that, the paper didn't endorse any presidential nominee.
However, in 2008, the paper endorsed Barack Obama, subsequently, it endorsed Democratic presidential nominees exclusively.
This non-endorsement caused outrage among members of the Times' editorial board.
One such member is Mariel Garza, who resigned from the paper in protest. Garza spoke to the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) about her decision and even shared her resignation letter.
Garza was quick to claim victimhood in her interview with CJR.
“I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent” Garza claimed.
Garza then confirmed what we all know about the mainstream media. They no longer care to be factual instead are blatantly partisan and ideological.
“I didn’t think we were going to change our readers’ minds—our readers, for the most part, are Harris supporters”
“We’re a very liberal paper. I didn’t think we were going to change the outcome of the election in California."
"...an endorsement was the logical next step after a series of editorials we’ve been writing about how dangerous Trump is to democracy,...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
They don’t want to be the people remembered in the future for endorsing Kam-Stalin.
Just do what many of the WP writers are doing and submit a Harris/Walz endorsement anyway. What is the LAT going to do, fire you?!
The DUmmies over at the DUmp are livid that the WaPo didn’t endorse harris. Many of them allegedly canceled their subscriptions.
The LA Slimes is still around?! Who knew.
The owners of the Compost and the NY Slimes can’t keep their publications afloat if they keep losing subscribers and can’t gain new ones if everyone knows they have a particular political point of view. Take it for the lefties on staff not to understand economics and attracting customers who just want to read an objective, unbiased newspaper!
LA Slimes.
I bet they didn't. Just like the liberals who claimed they would leave the country if Trump was elected in 2016.
Supposedly the Dump claimed that 100,000 people an hour were canceling their subscriptions.
At that rate there would be no subscribers left by the end of today.
Hopefully for once in their miserable lives they got the numbers correct.
The owner denies making the decision. He posted on X that the editorial board made the call and he supported them. Evidence is hard to come by but then again the Washington Post editorial board came to the same conclusion. Something is rotten in Denmark and these editorial boards can smell it.
What I mean is, she's about to see what life is like for an idiot who's no longer useful.
Hope she has some money offshore, 'cause she'll have trouble selling her word salad after Nov. 5
The Democratic Party propaganda organs are losing their minds in front of the camera. It is a glory to see.
FTA: “The L.A. Times is still the largest paper in California and one of the largest in the U.S.”
It may be still one of the largest but like the Washington Post it loses $100 million per year. It was bailed out of oblivion by a billionaire as was the NYT and the Washington Post.
Though the owner is a billionaire he doesn’t have resources of Carlos Slim or Jeff Bezos and will probably end up selling it for a dollar like Newsweek was.
These newspapers are de facto political contributions to the Democratic Party.
Each billionaire has to figure out if the cost/benefit is there for their bribery.
Obviously, they don’t understand the employer (owner)/employee relationship. It’s a corporate decision whether or not the paper will endorse anyone. That a board member or worker doesn’t like it they are free to comply or leave the job.
Promises, promises. If only.
Heh-heh-heh. I remember when Miriam Garza took over as editor for the Times. I read her biography and asked myself how long it would be before the paper crashed and burned. I am happy to see that she resigned in disgust at not being able to endorse Kamala Hairball. Good riddance!
Both subscribers are outraged?
Why? Because the 'press is biased, corrupt, stupid and sickening.
Not getting the endorsements is probably more a negative for her than getting them would have been a positive, though really of close to zero consequence for votes. The endorsements are just to make Democrats feel warm and fuzzy about themselves for having such “smart people” as the editorialists on their side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.