SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
los angeles times
Cowardly Billionaire Newspaper Owners Expose How Trump Has Already Won
This is why Democratic rhetoric about “saving democracy” has been so unpersuasive for undecided voters. Anti-Trump voters may know that democracy is important, but working people know something else: that what the billionaires want, they get. It’s hard to ask people to save something they feel they’ve already lost.
We’ve reached the point where a caudillo—a strongman figure—can openly threaten supposedly independent institutions and suppress opinions he doesn’t like.
Would a second Trump term do profound harm to democratic principles? Yes. Would this country’s vital institutions be cowed and manipulated with threats, hate speech, revenge, and the hideous lineaments of pseudo-Christian fascism? Yes. It’s a frightening prospect.
That may not be a big deal to this country’s elites, but they’d prefer the stability of a Kamala Harris presidency to the unpredictability of another Trump term. It’s better for their business interests. That’s why she’s raising so much more money than Trump.
But the billionaire owners of the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post don’t dare act against Trump, who has been open about his pursuit of vengeance and equally clear that he’ll reward his friends with government contracts.
These are the signs that an already-damaged democracy is entering a new stage of decay. We’ve reached the point where a caudillo—a strongman figure—can openly threaten supposedly independent institutions and suppress opinions he doesn’t like.
These newspapers’ cowardly actions prove, in one way, that Trump has already won. He has stripped the veneer off our democracy and revealed the cowardice and greed beneath it. It is the latest in the series of political innovations Trump has brought to American politics: rule by fear.
Whoever wins the election, we know now that naked intimidation works. The owners of American media are financially dependent on government contracts, tax breaks, and the good graces of the executive branch. Their reporters depend on government officials as sources. That’s why Trump’s threats are working.
These newspapers’ cowardly actions prove, in one way, that Trump has already won. He has stripped the veneer off our democracy and revealed the cowardice and greed beneath it.
Democrats could take Trump’s cynical lesson to heart, as Lyndon Johnson might if he were still around. But it would be better to call out a system that allows billionaires to censor the news because a bully is pressuring the billionaires.
What they shouldn’t do is talk about “saving” a democracy so few voters believe in. It would be wiser to talk about “restoring” it—although it never functioned perfectly, especially for Black voters and the poor.
Polling bears that out. A July 2024 Pew Research survey found that an overwhelming 72 percent of Americans don’t believe the United States is a good example of democracy. Democrats were slightly more likely to believe in American democracy than Republicans, but they’re hardly starry-eyed. Less than one-fourth of Democrats think we have an exemplary democracy.
The best way to talk about democracy is as an unrealized ideal. That would mean renouncing the endorsement of anti-democratic figures like Dick Cheney, who ascended to the vice presidency in an undemocratic power grab by the Supreme Court; Gen. John Kelly, who defended pro-slavery Civil War insurgents and committed ethical lapses; James Clapper, who gave false testimony to Congress; and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who approved illegal torture programs under President George W. Bush.
I understand that they’re trying to reach Republican voters who are uncomfortable with Trump’s totalitarian tendencies, but how many voters like that are there? This approach may alienate more people than it gains.
Trump may regain the presidency, or he may not. But either way, he has changed politics forever, reshaping it in his own image.
In any case, this campaign is almost over—“all over but the shouting,” as the old saying goes. Trump may regain the presidency, or he may not. But either way, he has changed politics forever, reshaping it in his own image. There will be candidates who don’t hesitate to use what he’s taught them this year.
Americans who believe in the ideal of democracy will have to fight even harder for it—now, and for generations to come.
LA Times Editor Resigns After Billionaire Owner's 'Craven' Veto of Harris Endorsement
The editorial board endorsed President Joe Biden over Donald Trump—the current Republican nominee—in 2020 and has endorsed the Democratic nominee in every presidential contest since 2008.
In her resignation letter to executive editor Terry Tang, Garza wrote that the decision not to endorse a presidential candidate in what the editorial board recently described as potentially "the most consequential election in a generation" makes the paper "look craven and hypocritical, maybe even a bit sexist and racist."
"How could we spend eight years railing against Trump and the danger his leadership poses to the country and then fail to endorse the perfectly decent Democrat challenger—who we previously endorsed for the U.S. Senate?" Garza asked. "The non-endorsement undermines the integrity of the editorial board and every single endorsement we make, down to school board races. People will justifiably wonder if each endorsement was a decision made by a group of journalists after extensive research and discussion, or through decree by the owner."
Garza continued:
Seven years ago, the editorial board wrote this in its series about Donald Trump "Our Dishonest President": "Men and women of conscience can no longer withhold judgment. Trump's erratic nature and his impulsive, demagogic style endanger us all."
I still believe that's true.
In these dangerous times, staying silent isn't just indifference, it is complicity. I'm standing up by stepping down from the editorial board. Please accept this as my formal resignation, effective immediately.
In an interview with Columbia Journalism Review, Garza said she resigned because she wanted to "make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent," echoing her letter.
"In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up," Garza added. "This is how I’m standing up."
Mariel Garza resigned this week as editorials editor of The Los Angeles Times. (Photo via Columbia Journalism Review)
Semafor reported earlier this week that the newspaper's decision not to endorse in the November 5 presidential contest came directly from Soon-Shiong, who made his fortune in the healthcare industry. Soon-Shiong bought the paper for $500 million in 2018.
"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," Semafor's Max Tani noted. "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)."
Facing backlash over the non-endorsement, Soon-Shiong wrote in a social media post Wednesday evening that the paper's editorial board was "provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation"—which, as critics noted in response, is not the purpose of an editorial.
"In addition, the board was asked to provide their understanding of the policies and plans enunciated by the candidates during this campaign and its potential effect on the nation in the next four years," Soon-Shiong continued. "In this way, with this clear and non-partisan information side-by-side, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being president for the next four years."
John Mecklin, editor-in-chief of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, replied, "I've been a journalist for four decades, and what you just wrote, Dr. Pat Soon-Shiong, is the most clueless, beside-the-point gibberish I've ever seen a media enterprise owner write."
Frederick Deknatel, executive editor of the journal Democracy in Exile, added that "in case there was still any doubt, billionaire owners are not the saviors of journalism."
Most Popular