As the Los Angeles Times faces an editorial exodus over the owner’s decision not to endorse a presidential candidate, his daughter is defending the decision.
Politician and activist Nika Soon-Shiong expressed support for father Patrick Soon-Shiong‘s recent refusal to endorse Kamala Harris, whom she says is “overseeing a war on children” in Gaza amid the Israel-Hamas conflict.
“There is a lot of controversy and confusion over the LAT‘s decision not to endorse a presidential candidate. I trust the Editorial Board’s judgment. For me, genocide is the line in the sand,” she began Thursday in a thread on X.
As the platform notes in an additional context disclaimer, it was ultimately her father who decided not to endorse, and there was no indication that the Israel-Hamas war contributed to the decision.
Nika explained that her father served as an emergency surgeon in the 1976 Soweto uprising, in which at least 176 died protesting racial segregation amid South Africa’s Apartheid, which she compared to the “plausible genocide” in Gaza.
“This moment requires opposition to crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and Apartheid – as my parents did in South Africa,” she wrote, adding: “For my family, Apartheid is not a vague concept.”
Nika added, “This is not a vote for Donald Trump. This is a refusal to ENDORSE a candidate that is overseeing a war on children. I’m proud of the LA Times‘ decision just as I am certain there is no such thing as children of darkness. There is no such thing as human animals.”
Despite endorsing a candidate in every presidential election since 2008, when they supported Barack Obama, the Times‘ editorial board was reportedly told recently that the decided not to make an endorsement this year. The Associated Press reported that the board was planning to endorse Harris.
The paper’s editorials editor Mariel Garza subsequently announced her resignation, with veteran journalists Robert Greene and Karin Klein having since followed her lead, according to the AP.
Meanwhile, Patrick has responded to the resignations and wave of subscription cancellations with a statement assigning responsibility to the board.
“Let me clarify how this decision came about,” he said in part. “The 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. 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. 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. Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision. Please #vote.”
The bargaining committee of the LA Times Guild Unit Council has said they are “deeply concerned about our owner’s decision to block a planned endorsement in the presidential race. We are even more concerned that he is unfairly assigning blame to Editorial Board members for his decision not to endorse. We are still pressing for answers from newsroom management on behalf of our members.”
