Los Angeles Times Editor Resigns

The Resignation of Mariel Garza and Its Aftermath

In a surprising shakeup, Mariel Garza, head of the Los Angeles Times editorial department, resigned following the paper’s decision not to endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential race. The move, which Garza called “perplexing to readers, and possibly suspicious,” follows a controversial directive from the paper’s billionaire owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, to withhold endorsement of any candidate, including Vice President Kamala Harris. The decision has not only stirred internal strife but also fueled political tensions, particularly given the L.A. Times' history of endorsements and its generally liberal leaning.

Soon-Shiong’s Directive and Its Impact

Patrick Soon-Shiong, who acquired the Los Angeles Times in 2018, reportedly instructed the editorial department to abstain from endorsing either major candidate in the upcoming election, despite the editorial board’s decision to support Vice President Kamala Harris. This mandate has raised questions within the newsroom and among readers, given the paper’s long-standing history of endorsing presidential candidates. The L.A. Times has endorsed candidates in every presidential race since 1881, except for a brief period from 1972 until 2008.

Soon-Shiong’s directive marks a stark departure from tradition, one that Garza and other editorial board members viewed as compromising journalistic integrity. “I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent,” Garza shared with the Columbia Journalism Review in an interview following her resignation. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”

A Complicated Political Landscape and Accusations of Bias

The timing of this endorsement controversy comes amid heightened political polarization, and Soon-Shiong’s own political donations have added fuel to the fire. According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, Soon-Shiong donated to former Vice President Mike Pence’s 2023 campaign, a move that critics argue may have influenced his stance on the paper’s endorsement.

The decision has also garnered significant attention from political figures. Following the Los Angeles Times’ announcement, some Republican leaders quickly spun the silence as a blow to Harris, with the Trump campaign calling it a “humiliating blow” for the Democratic candidate. These accusations have added to the intrigue surrounding the decision, framing the L.A. Times’ neutrality as a tacit condemnation of the vice president’s campaign.

The Evolving Role of Newspaper Endorsements in American Politics

In an era where political endorsements from newspapers often spark heated debates, the L.A. Times’ decision has led to further reflection on the significance of these endorsements. Garza herself initially questioned the importance of the paper’s endorsement in a state as overwhelmingly Democratic as California. “I told myself that presidential endorsements don’t really matter; that California was not ever going to vote for Trump,” she admitted. However, she recounted how the reality of Soon-Shiong’s directive “hit like cold water” as the news spread, with former President Trump using the absence of an endorsement to fuel anti-Harris narratives.

Garza’s final statement on the matter powerfully underscores her motivation for stepping down. “In these dangerous times, staying silent isn’t just indifference, it is complicity,” she stated. Her resignation, effective immediately, signals both her protest against the paper’s unprecedented stance and her commitment to journalistic integrity, even at personal cost.

A Good Look?

The decision to refrain from endorsing a candidate in 2024 has undoubtedly reshaped the public’s perception of the Los Angeles Times. With Garza’s resignation, the question remains whether the paper will maintain its editorial independence or if this episode signals a broader shift in the role of traditional news outlets in modern American politics. The impact on the paper’s reputation, both within California and nationally, will be felt in the months to come, as readers and critics alike await the long-term effects of this historic decision.