LA Times Guild begs subscribers not to cancel after editor resigns over owner's refusal to allow paper to endorse Kamala Harris

The Los Angeles Times declined to endorse a presidential candidate after endorsing Democrats since 2008. Now, the editorials editor has decided to resign over it. Mariel Garza quit on Wednesday because she was "not okay" with the paper's silence on backing Vice President Kamala Harris for president. That silence led the Donald Trump campaign to say that "even her fellow Californians know she's not up for the job."

The lack of an endorsement and the resignation of Garza prompted the LA Times Guild to release their own statement begging readers not to give up their subscriptions, reminding them that subscriptions pay the salaries of those staffed on the paper. "We remain deeply concerned about The Times' owner's decision to block a planned endorsement," they said, going on to say that they are "pressing for answers."

"I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent," she told the Columbia Journalism Review, "In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I'm standing up." Garza was confused as to why the endorsement was prevented from running and she said that her readers were, as well, calling the decisions "perplexing." Harris is a native Californian who served her entire political career in the state as a prosecutor, district attorney, and attorney general before running to represent the state in the US Senate.

It was owner Patrick Soon-Shiong of the LA Times who made the call not to back Harris. He bought the outlet in 2018 and sent his message via editor Terry Tang. Garza didn't like it, and she's the one who had written the editorial she expected the paper to run backing Harris after the editorial board decided to endorse Harris. 

He addressed the lack of endorsement, saying that the Editorial Board was asked 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." and that "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."

The idea was to provide "clear and non-partisan information side-by-side" so that readers could decide what they thought themselves. "Instead of adopting this path as suggested," he said, "the Editorial Board chose to remain silent."

Garza's letter addressed the "veto" of the editorial, saying that in the wake of that decision, she asked herself if presidential endorsements even matter or if anyone would even notice that the outlet had not explicitly backed Harris since they so frequently dump on Trump. But she determined that "Of course it matters that the largest newspaper in the state—and one of the largest in the nation still—declined to endorse in a race this important." Her belief was that it made the outlet "look craven and hypocritical, maybe even a bit sexist and racist."

Even with the endorsement, it wasn't like Garza thought the board would change the minds of readers, CJR writes. "I didn't think we were going to change our readers' minds," Garza said, "Our readers, for the most part, are Harris supporters." The LA Times is headquartered in deep blue LA where liberals are the norm and Republicans are just considered weird and wrong.

"We're a very liberal paper," Garza said, "I didn't think we were going to change the outcome of the election in California." But Garza and the board never got the chance to try because the owner of the outlet put his foot down against such a thing. 

Garza spoke to the CJR, saying "But two things concern me: This is a point in time where you speak your conscience no matter what. And an endorsement was the logical next step after a series of editorials we’ve been writing about how dangerous Trump is to democracy, about his unfitness to be president, about his threats to jail his enemies. We have made the case in editorial after editorial that he shouldn’t be reelected."

In the conclusion of her resignation letter, she said "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."