Staff Reports
The meltdown of the Los Angeles Times over its decision not to endorse Kamala Harris has all the drama of a daytime soap opera, with all the plot twists of a poorly written script. Once a bastion of journalism—if that term can still be applied—the paper is now floundering, mired in internal chaos that stems directly from its misguided attempts at “diversity” and political correctness. It seems that in its rush to promote a particular agenda, the LA Times has forgotten the basic tenets of journalism, and its editorial board is paying the price.
In the aftermath of the George Floyd riots, many corporations, including the LA Times, kneeled to the demands of social justice warriors. This well-intentioned initiative, however, resulted in a catastrophic decline in quality. New hires lacked experience, yet they were given unwarranted privileges within the editorial ranks. The idea that qualifications are subordinate to race appears to have become the norm, and the result has been a string of poorly crafted articles that even seasoned editors find subpar. It’s difficult to imagine how the LA Times has kept its readers when even insiders are bemoaning the state of their publication.
The recent non-endorsement of Kamala Harris—who is rather emblematic of the paper’s political stance—has driven the final nail into the coffin of credibility for the Times. Despite being a prominent Democrat from California, the editorial board refrained from offering her support, leaving many staffers in an uproar. The disconnect between the ownership and the editorial staff is palpable. Employees are demanding clarity about why their paper refused to rally behind one of their own, illustrating a schism that seems to be fueled by the paper’s own insistence on ideological purity.
Requiem for a Rag: The LA Times Implodes Over the 'Non-Endorsement' of Harrishttps://t.co/hUOjfA8NrA
— RedState (@RedState) October 24, 2024
As it turns out, the LA Times is grappling not with a straightforward lack of direction but rather a fundamental inability to please its own employees while maintaining a semblance of journalistic integrity. This internal strife has manifested in resignations from the editorial board, including a disgruntled resigning editor who passionately voiced her concerns over the board’s integrity—or lack thereof. Her dramatic departure signals that the Times is crumbling under the weight of its own poorly made decisions and ideological strictures.
This whole debacle is particularly entertaining for those who have long recognized the degrading standards of legacy media. The LA Times has opted to alienate a sizable portion of its audience in favor of a narrow ideological base, labeling dissenters as bigots and climate deniers. The irony is that while they preach tolerance, they offer none to those who dare to disagree. The paper is bleeding readers and resources faster than a reality show star can say “Get me a PR consultant,” yet it continues on its path of self-destruction.
The once-glorious LA Times appears destined to join the ranks of defunct publications, relegated to the annals of history alongside the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. For those invested in its demise, the melodrama within the Times serves as a humorous reminder of how far some institutions have fallen when they neglect their core mission and succumb to the pressures of identity politics. The paper has unwittingly crafted its own requiem—and it emerges as a cautionary tale against prioritizing ideology over quality journalism.
