LA Times owner’s daughter defends decision not to approve

How Los Angeles Times faces editorial outcome due to owner decision not to approve presidential candidate, his daughter defends this decision.

Politician and activist Nika Soon-Shiong expressed support for her father Patrick Soon-Shiongrecent refusal to approve Kamala Harriswho, she said, is “overseeing the war on children” in Gaza against the backdrop of Israel-Hamas conflict.

“There is a lot of controversy and confusion about Latviadecision not to support a presidential candidate. I trust the opinion of the editorial board. To me, genocide is a line in the sand,” she began Thursday in a thread on X.

As the additional disclaimer notes, it was ultimately her father who decided not to support, and there was no indication that the war between Israel and Hamas contributed to that decision.

Nika explained that her father worked as an emergency surgeon during the 1976 Soweto uprising, in which at least 176 people died protesting racial segregation under apartheid South Africa, which she compared to a “plausible genocide” in the sector Gaza.

“This moment calls for confronting 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 SUPPORT a candidate who is overseeing a war on children. I’m proud Los Angeles Times‘, just as I am sure that children of darkness do not exist. There is no such thing as animal people.”

Despite supporting a candidate in every presidential elections since 2008, when they supported Barack Obama, TimeRecently the editorial board was informed that decided not to endorse this year. Associated Press reported that the board planned to support Harris.

The newspaper’s editorial editor, Mariel Garza, later announced her resignationVeteran journalists Robert Greene and Karin Klein have since followed suit, according to the AP.

Meanwhile, Patrick responded to the resignations and wave of cancellations with a statement. statement distribution of responsibility to the board of directors.

“Let me clarify how this decision was made,” he said in part. “The editors were given the opportunity to compile a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies of EACH candidate during their time in the White House, and how those policies impacted the nation. In addition, the Council was asked to provide its understanding of the policies and plans announced by the candidates during this campaign and its potential impact on the country over the next four years. Thus, based on this clear and unbiased information, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being president for the next four years. Instead of going down this path, as suggested, the editors chose to remain silent, and I accepted their decision. Please #vote.”

The LA Times Guild Council’s negotiating committee said they were “deeply troubled by our owner’s decision to block a planned entry into the presidential race.” What is even more troubling to us is that he unfairly places blame on members of the editorial board for his decision not to approve the article. We are still demanding answers from editorial leadership on behalf of our members.”