Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of the LA Times, has been promising to restore trust in media over the last few months. Instead, he has launched an escalating campaign of editorial interference that acc…
But perhaps the most damning edit — made just before Soon-Shiong would falsely present the piece as pro-Kennedy — was the removal of this devastating critique at the closing of the piece:
Although RFK Jr. and Luigi Mangione are both responses to the same underlying problem of US healthcare corruption, there is a major difference between them: one operated outside the law to kill one person in defense of millions, whereas the other––via his egomaniacal disregard for scientific evidence––seeks to use law itself to inflict preventable death on those millions.
Let that sink in: Reinhart explicitly warned that RFK Jr’s appointment could lead to the “preventable death” of “millions” — and the LA Times not only stripped this warning from the piece, it then used the neutered version to advocate for Kennedy’s appointment.
This isn’t editorial oversight — it’s literary gaslighting.
Brutal biased and unethical journalism. If the people cared they’d be really upset.
This is insane. If anyone hasn’t yet, cancel your subscriptions.
LAT should maybe be banned here too. This is editorial not news but, if they’re willing to completely reverse the meaning without acknowledgement or changing attribution, how can we trust a word in that paper? They’ve just discredited everyone who works there.
It’s not going to hurt their bottom line, but as a matter of principle I deleted my bookmark for the LAT when their billionaire owner refused to allow the paper to endorse Harris/Walz. So this honestly doesn’t surprise me at all. Just add it to the list of reasons we need to tax billionaires out of existence.
Brutal biased and unethical journalism. If the people cared they’d be really upset.
Came here to quote that same thing.
This is insane. If anyone hasn’t yet, cancel your subscriptions.
LAT should maybe be banned here too. This is editorial not news but, if they’re willing to completely reverse the meaning without acknowledgement or changing attribution, how can we trust a word in that paper? They’ve just discredited everyone who works there.
It’s not going to hurt their bottom line, but as a matter of principle I deleted my bookmark for the LAT when their billionaire owner refused to allow the paper to endorse Harris/Walz. So this honestly doesn’t surprise me at all. Just add it to the list of reasons we need to tax billionaires out of existence.