The Times They Are a Changing

On Sunday, the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, who blocked the paper’s editorial board from publishing its endorsement of Kamala Harris, causing a mass of subscription cancellations, decided to triple down based on his long, non-existent career in journalism.
 
He posted the following tweet –

I wrote a response, but since TwiXter only always for 288 characters per individual message, my reply didn’t do my position justice.  So, this is an expanded version of it --
 
Dr. Soon-Shiong:  You made a billion dollars in a completely different profession, as a transplant surgeon, medical researcher and inventor of an anti-cancer drug, and therefore seem to think your years in medicine somehow qualifies you for expertise in journalism. This is the equivalent of baseball Hall of Famer Rich "Goose" Gossage buying a hospital because he could afford it and then ordering doctors on how to do open heart surgery.  You keep showing with every tweet you post and every statement you make that you do not understand journalism. No matter how much your directives try to pretend otherwise.
 
"Fair and balanced" is, of course, the motto of Fox which is so identified with the phrase that they trademarked it a quarter-of-a-century ago, something your lawyers could have easily informed you, at least if you cared about fresh, vibrant journalism.  The added irony, of course, being that Fox used its fake concept of "fair and balanced" to flim-flam its viewers into thinking they were getting real journalism, honesty and reality, but instead employed it to lie (remember that $787 million settlement for lying about supposed, rigged voting machines?) and help enable fascism. What most readers of serious newspapers want is not “fair and balanced,” but accurate and honest and the truth. But what MAGOPs and viewers of supposed “fair and balanced” Fox want are fictional, defamatory lies that "balance" the truth in order to appear to be "fair” to their side.  Even if their side is fictional, defamatory, lies and unsupportable.  That's the way you get people willing to vote for someone to be president of the United States, commander-in-chief of U.S. military forces who has been convicted of 34 felonies, found liable for what the judge called the equivalence of rape, been found guilty of fraud, said he wants to be a dictator, said he wants to terminate some of the U.S. Constitution and has had psychologists and psychiatrists write articles and books about how he shows signs of dementia -- all of which they dismiss as "fake news."  All of which are literally facts.

To think otherwise, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong would have to believe that under his guidance since buying the paper in 2018, the Los Angeles Times has been publishing news that is false and is the "Enemy of the People".  I am near-certain that he doesn't remotely believe this.  Absent that, though, he doesn't seem to understand (to be incredibly clear) that the MAGOP don't dismiss the Los Angeles Times because they think it is "unfair" in how it reports the news and "not balanced" enough -- but because they believe that what it publishes (and what all of the mainstream press publishes, all of it) is not true, and is a traitorous enemy to the country.
 
"Fair and balanced' is far too often a chimera to obscure the truth, like if 150 eminent scientists independently say their professional studies each show empirically that Climate Change is real, but to be “fair” and to “balance” that out, reporting that, on the other hand, others disagree -- except that those "others" are two local TV weathermen who says they doesn’t believe it.  (Fun Fact:  science is not a belief system, something Dr. Soon-Shiong has dedicated his life to understanding.)
 
“Fair and balanced” is like saying that if you put one foot in a bucket of boiling water and your other foot in a bucket of ice water, the conditions are balanced, so it’s fair to say you are perfectly comfortable. In reality, of course, you’d be screaming your head off.
 
But hey, to be “fair and balanced,” everyone has a valid opinion, and it deserves to be heard.  That’s how it works in medicine, too, right?  If a patient came in your office and said how they wanted their heart transplant handled, because they read a book on it, you’d have considered their opinion as valid as yours, I’m sure.  To be fair and balanced, of course.  After all, as you say, "ALL voices must be heard."
 
Sometimes reporting the truth hurts.  It's the "inconvenient truth," as Al Gore put it.  But it's still the truth.  I’m sure as a doctor, you always told the truth to your patients, not matter how painful that truth was.  You likely might have occasionally softened how you said it, to be kind, but you still told them the truth.  (I’m taking a leap here on the whole “to be kind” concept, given your stance on dealing with professional journalists and saying you’re going to get rid of your editorial board because they endorsed someone you didn’t appear to want to win.)  But a newspaper is only valuable if it investigates and reports the truth.  Otherwise, it’s a PR press release with ads.

That's where trust comes in. Trust is, indeed, critical for a strong democracy, as you write.  But trust doesn't come when the medical doctor owner of a newspaper allows his editorial board from publishing many dozens of endorsements in every race, but personally blocks the most important one for president just one week before the election.  An endorsement they made after lengthy interviewing, thought and debate which they most surely explained openly in their endorsement.  Because trust is critical for a strong democracy -- as you write -- which is why allowing one's own paper to endorse the candidate they were planning to who isn't a convicted felon, guilty of fraud, liable of the equivalence of rape, and who says immigrants eat pet dogs might have been a good thing for establishing trust.
 
But somehow, despite a long and admirable career in medicine and zero experience in journalism, but having the money to buy a newspaper, you have come to believe that you are an expert in journalism, a conclusion you perhaps came to because you’ve read them for years.  That’s like saying you are an expert in making movies because you’ve watched them all your life. 
 
Do you have the right to make any changes you want because you made a billion dollars from your medical invention and could buy a legendary, important newspaper that has been an important part of the culture and lifeblood of Los Angeles since it was founded 143 years ago in 1881?  Perhaps so, but just because a person has the right to do something doesn’t mean it should be done.  If you want to crack open a peanut, you have the right to put it in your driveway, buy a bulldozer, and crush it to bits.  (Sort of like what you’re doing to the Los Angeles Times.)  But – perhaps not, perhaps you don't have the right.  Because often times treasured landmarks of a community, even if owned by someone, are not allowed to make every change because they are of such great, intrinsic, historic value.  People who own their home are generally not allowed to change everything about it, despite being the actual owner, because it goes against code or Homeowner Association rules.  To be clear, the issue isn’t that the Los Angeles Times doesn’t have similar rules, and therefore you can do whatever you want.  The issue is that you bought a newspaper which holds a century-old value to its massive metropolitan community of 18 million people, and you’re spitting all over it because you believe you can.  If that was your attitude, you should never have bought the paper.  It's that whole, pesky "trust" thing you mentioned.
 
It's an attitude that reminds me of a joke I heard online during a Writers Guild strike.  A writer and a producer are dragging themselves through the blistering hot desert, parched and in agony.  Up ahead, they see blessed pool of cool water.  The writer slowly crawls to the edge of the pool and starts to lower his mouth to take a drink – when suddenly he hears a dripping sound.  He stops, and looks up in horror to see the producer urinating in the pool.  “What in the world are you doing??!!” the writer cries out.  The producer warmly smiles, “I’m making it better.”
 
I believe you think you are making the Los Angeles Times better.  (See above.)
 
And that basically is what I said in my 288-character tweet.  Only I said it a bit shorter.
 
When Dr. Soon-Shiong undermined his editorial board, the one tiny saving grace was that it concerned the opinion pages alone, not the news division.  To be clear, yes, that’s very bad, but at least opinions are subjective, and people understand that when reading op-ed pages.  The news division of facts, truth, investigation, and reality, however, seemed protected -- hopefully.  But with this statement by the paper's owner on Sunday, that’s no longer clear.  Further, it raises the question of whether anything that Dr. Soon-Shiong said about blocking publication of the Harris endorsement had anything remotely to do with what he said, or – as this new tweet suggests – is pretty much what he has wanted all along.  I don’t know.  But that’s the door he himself opened.

That door, however, has seemingly been open for a while.  After all, as Politico reported in 2017, right after Trump took office, Dr. Soon-Shiong's harsh criticism of the country's war on cancer "caught the attention of Joe Biden and, more recently, Donald Trump, who met privately with Soon-Shiong twice during the transition, as he reportedly angled for a role in the administration."  After which he bought the Los Angeles Times one year later.  With the possibility now of a new Trump administration, and new roles in it, it's not unreasonable to at least consider that the doctor blocking his paper's planned endorsement of Kamala Harris might not have been as "journalistically" motivated as he'd like people to believe.  Maybe that's not the case at all.  I'm just trying to fair and balanced for those who might think otherwise.

​One would have hoped that, having been born in South Africa and grown up and trained in the medical profession there under apartheid, a person would be especially wary of oppressive, controlling rulers.  Whether in government or business.  Unfortunately, after such a long, admirable career in medicine helping people, the shame is creating a new legacy that undermines such an impressive past.  If only "First, do no harm" continued as your motto, rather than copying the fascist-enabling Fox's trademarked, disingenuous "Fair and balanced".

Okay, imagine that in 288-characters, and you get the idea...
 
By the way, when I said above that Dr. Soon-Shiong had “tripled down” in his tweet that tried to present a non-existent expertise in journalism, I left out mention of the tweet he posted right after the election.  That  read –

Not shockingly, I replied to this, well.  Because of that pesky 288-character limit, this is ​the expanded version, though happily shorter than the one just noted.  What I wrote was (basically) --

“The American people have spoken”??  Trump, thus far (with California still being counted) received 50.2% of the vote!  That’s like tossing a coin.  Kamala Harris has so far received 48.1%.  You pretend to make it seem like there is a “voice of the people” that now covers everyone.  The Senate is split, razor thin.  The House is split, razor thin.  There are 50 state governments, almost half of which are lead by Democrats.  Pro-abortion bills passed across the country, even in Red states.  Same with other liberal propositions.  “The people have spoken”?  You seem to think that that pretend wise-sounding proclamation means something it doesn’t.  Trump won the election – and Democrats (unlike the MAGOP for the past four years) accept it, without rioting, without trying to overthrow the government, but admittedly in anger at what he might do with his foundation of fascism, quotes echoing Hitler, and saying he wants to be a dictator, on top of his 34 felony convictions, being found liable of the equivalence of rape, found guilty of fraud and signs of early dementia.  Seriously, what do you think you are saying?  And more to the point – “the American people have spoken”??  -- what do you think your actual job is??!
 
I’ll give you a reminder: the Los Angeles Times, which you own, specifically serves Los Angeles and California. Other people may read it, because it's long been a good, objective, fact-based paper -- but it serves Los Angeles and California.  That's who actually subscribes to it.  If you want to talk about elections, as you appear to make it seem like you do -- and if you also want to talk about the people speaking -- Kamala Harris actually got 65% of the election vote in Los Angeles, and Trump got only 32%. In the state of California, VP Harris is ahead 59%-38%. In case it slipped past your attention, that is your subscriber base. The people who actually buy your paper. Who support it.  Whose voices actually "spoke" very loudly.  And which, as your subscribers, in your own words, "must be heard".  As in “must.”  Otherwise, why on earth would they read and buy your paper?  As so many former readers made extremely clear by cancelling their subscriptions when you trampled on the editorial board.  Subscriptions on which you base the ad rates that help keep your paper alive. 
 
And if the Los Angeles Times becomes a pale shell of its long-term excellence, it’s not only your fault, but it’s not something you can just toss in a “fair and balanced” transplanted heart to make sure there is still one pumping.  Because when you start removing the heart, and try replacing it instead with conspiratorial bilge to appeal to people whose concept of "fair and balanced" news is believing reports that JFK is coming back from the dead and that Anderson Cooper eats babies, all you risk doing is burying the patient.
 
You are an eminent doctor.  You have zero background or career in journalism.  Do not fool yourself into thinking otherwise.  Making pronouncements about what journalism is and should be, a subject of which you have absolutely no training in just makes you look foolish, like an emperor who buys the Mona Lisa and then paints a funny hat and glasses on her, and pontificates why it’s art – and why he, as now an artist, made it, y’know, “better.”   Buying the 143-year-old Los Angeles Times makes you a caretaker.  You have a community treasure in your hands that is about accuracy, facts, honesty and reality and serving that community.  The paper has had its ups and downs over that century and a half, but it's always stood at the center of the diverse city filled with people coming from all over the country, as its voice.  And for the past half-century, it has been admired and awarded for its drive for high-quality reality-based journalism, a hallmark of democracy.  You, instead, are pushing to make it worthy for the bottom of a birdcage.
 
What I didn't write in my online replies on Sunday, since I didn't want to act out of an immediate, angry response (which has only grown since then), is that after several decades, I have cancelled my subscription to the Los Angeles Times.  It was a very difficult decision because I want to support factual, honest, objective journalism wherever it lands, whoever it offends or supports.  Especially local journalism, in need of and deserving that support. That's why I kept my subscription even after Dr. Soon-Shiong blocked publishing the endorsement of Kamala Harris as it was ready to go to press.  But now his thoroughly disingenuous and even perhaps deceitful positions appear to be bleeding into the news side of the paper, when his posting on Sunday, under the egregiously, deceptive false cover of supposed journalistic "standards" pushed things past the line -- hindering his own paper's open journalism, rather than supposedly expanding it.  I can recognize an owner cowering to and enabling fascism when I see it.  And I don’t want to be a party to that.  What I do want is to return as a subscriber one day to support the actual, important journalists who work there, and the staff that backs them, when providing truthful, factual, honest reporting.  Maybe even soon, if conditions change themselves.  I will not be waiting around, though.