patrick.net

The owner of the Los Angeles Times has forbidden the paper’s editorial board from backing Kamala Harris in this year’s US presidential election, bucking two decades of Democratic endorsements, Semafor has reported.

The editorial board was preparing to endorse Harris for the presidency, until Executive Editor Terry Tang intervened earlier this month and ordered no endorsement be published, Semafor reported on Tuesday, citing two anonymous sources.

According to the sources, the order came directly from the paper’s owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong.

A South African-born medical doctor and billionaire entrepreneur, Soon-Shiong bought the ailing LA Times in 2018. While he managed to reverse decades of losses and headcount reductions, the newspaper’s advertising revenue plummeted during the Covid-19 pandemic, and more than 100 employees were sacked earlier this year.

Soon-Shiong’s decision to block the endorsement of Harris will be seen as a major blow to the vice president, as the LA Times is the most prominent newspaper in her home state of California.

Ohhhhhhh, that one is nasty. Hahahahaha

The Washington Post will not be endorsing Kamala Harris. For the first time in forty years, the paper will not endorse anyone.

Yeah coke users are pretty obvious. That's a coke user. Not even a question.

https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/show-notes-we-have-some-trends

The Washington Post will not be endorsing Kamala Harris. For the first time in forty years, the paper will not endorse anyone.

This development was colossally catastrophic, undermining the foundations of Democrat world view. The two papers were the safest sources Democrats rely on to tell them what it’s okay to think, and what they can safely say. And those foundations of safety just slid sideways.

As with anyone whose core identity is unexpectedly challeged, the WaPo’s refusal to endorse Democrats’ selected candidate produced incandescent fury and incoherent rage. For example, the increasingly deranged, far-left podcaster Keith Olbermann, who yesterday non-ironically demanded Biden immediately arrest Elon Musk and nationalize Musk’s companies, also rage-quit the Washington Post to protest the paper’s non-endorsement...

In other words, they think Bezos is scared that he’ll get the Elon Musk treatment. Even though fear of deep state retribution was the first explanation they ran to, Democrats still can’t see that the real problem is a weaponized federal government. (Democrats cannot imagine a world where the papers’ owners have good faith, bona fide reasons for not endorsing Harris.)

Jeff Bezos and the LA Times owner, billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, should be more worried about being punished by Democrats for their sudden betrayal. It’s more curious that they aren’t.

https://x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1849531763326095545

Reclaim The Net
@ReclaimTheNetHQ
23h
Meta had initially removed the post, labeling it a “derogatory sexualized photoshop,” (🤔) move that reeked of overreach, especially in an election year when political critique should flow freely. The Board essentially called out Meta, urging that censoring satire—even biting political satire—poses real risks to political speech and legitimate critique, especially when candidates are involved.

While Meta did reinstate the meme, the damage was done: censorship in the lead-up to an election is a point of no return. Removing posts, only to reverse them after backlash, only bolsters an argument critics have raised for years: Meta’s policies overly stifle speech at critical moments. With this case now on record with Meta's own Oversight Board, the real question is whether Meta’s censorship will evolve—or if "too little, too late" will be the rule.