SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"My first time working with the Los Angeles Times, and I expect also my last," said Dr. Eric Reinhart.
A public health expert on Friday accused the Los Angeles Times—whose billionaire owner recently sparked controversy for restricting editorials critical of Republican U.S. President Donald Trump—of distorting a highly critical opinion piece he authored in order to paint Health and Human Services secretary nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in a positive light.
Dr. Eric Reinhart, a political anthropologist and psychoanalytic clinician, said his piece, which the Timespublished on Wednesday, was originally titled, "RFK Jr.'s Wrecking Ball Won't Fix Public Health." However, Times editors ran the article under the title, "Trump's Healthcare Disruption Could Pay Off—If He Pushes Real Reform."
"My first time working with the Los Angeles Times, and I expect also my last," Reinhart said on social media Friday. "A vote for RFK Jr. is a vote for nothing but chaos, the opposite of the essential public-systems building I argue for in the op-ed, and mass death."
"Editors edit and control final copy and [headline], I get that," Reinhart added. "But editing out a very central and timely point in the minutes before sending to press while then also assigning a title and image that suggest an argument entirely opposite to the author's clear intent is bad."
As The New Republic's Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling reported Friday:
The original and final versions of Reinhart's article differ drastically in message. The first paragraph of the published opinion piece takes an optimistic tone about Kennedy's role in the Trump administration, suggesting that the virulent conspiracy theorist could be an answer and solution to the American public's bubbling resentment toward the healthcare industry.
Writing Friday on the social media platform Bluesky, Reinhart—who called the Times editors' actions "pretty shitty"—said his draft does "not leave my stance on RFK Jr. remotely ambiguous."
"He's dangerously ignorant, egomaniacal, and effectively a mass murderer in waiting," the doctor added. "He has no business being anywhere near HHS."
Biotech billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, who has owned the Times since 2018, prompted a wave of staff resignations and reader subscription cancellations following his issuance last month of an internal memo asking the members of the newspaper's board and opinion writers to "take a break from writing about Trump."
This, after Soon-Shiong blocked its editorial board from endorsing former Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris for president, a decision he
claimed was based partly on a desire for more balance in the Times opinion section and partly on Harris' complicity in the U.S.-backed Israeli annihilation of Gaza.
Earlier this week, Soon-Shiong wrote on social media: "I had not met Bobby Kennedy until a few months ago. The more I got to know him I truly believe he has the American public's best interests at heart. I have worried about toxins and the cause of cancer my entire career. As a physician-scientist I really hope he is confirmed" as health and human services secretary.
In a statement published Friday by Politico, Times vice president of communications Hillary Manning said that "our editors in opinion work with op-ed contributors to edit pieces for length, clarity, and accuracy, among other things," and that "no op-ed pieces are published, as edited, without the permission of the author. That includes the op-ed written by Eric Reinhart."
Reinhart retorted by saying, "What makes it concerning to me is the background of the owner's politics and known record of interference and editorial processes of the newspaper."
He added, "The depressing public health issue that was unfolding just as the op-ed was published... is, 'Are we or are we not going to confirm RFK Jr. for this incredibly important position for which he is massively and dangerously underqualified?'"
"Soon-Shiong has made several moves to force the paper, over the forceful objections of his staff, into a posture more sympathetic to Donald Trump," said one longtime opinion contributor who recently resigned.
Patrick Soon-Shiong—the biotech billionaire whose moves as owner of the Los Angeles Times have prompted a wave of resignations and subscription cancellations—is reportedly now asking the paper's editorial board to refrain from publishing pieces about Republican President-elect Donald Trump.
Oliver Darcy's Status newsletter accused Soon-Shiong of "meddling for MAGA" by requesting that Times members of the board and opinion writers, according to an internal memo, "take a break from writing about Trump."
Based on the memo viewed by Darcy, Soon-Shiong has asked editors to send him "the text of every editorial and the name of its writer" prior to publication, prompting staff "concerns about the ability of the board to do its job without fear of retaliation," according to Status.
Darcy wrote that the memo came from staffers who "said they were notifying [executive editor Terry] Tang, who oversees both the newsroom and opinion section, of Soon-Shiong's alarming actions because the newspaper's ethics policy requires employees to report 'anything that might cast a shadow on the Times' reputation.'"
"Glad I already resigned or I would have to do it now."
Responding Wednesday to the Status report, former Times senior legal affairs columnist Harry Litman wrote on social media, "Glad I already resigned or I would have to do it now."
Darcy's newsletter follows reporting last week that Soon-Shiong scuppered a draft editorial criticizing some of Trump's Cabinet nominees, telling editors that it could not run unless accompanied by a piece presenting an opposing view.
Earlier this month, Soon-Shiong said he planned to embed an artificial intelligence-powered "bias meter" in Times articles and editorials.
Soon-Shiong—a surgeon by training—has praised three doctors tapped for Trump's Cabinet. He has also dined with Trump, calling it an "incredible honor."
While Soon-Shiong has owned the Times—for which he paid $500 million as part of a multi-outlet deal—since 2018, the extent of his involvement in the paper's operations made headlines in October after he blocked its editorial board from endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president.
The decision—which Soon-Shiong said was based partly on a desire for more balance in the Times opinion section and partly on Harris' complicity in the U.S.-backed Israeli war on Gaza—prompted the resignation of editorials editor Maria Garza.
Other resignations have followed as "morale in the newsroom has plummeted," according to Darcy.
Litman explained on his Substack following his resignation earlier this month that he does not "want to continue to work for a paper that is appeasing Trump and facilitating his assault on democratic rule for craven reasons."
"My resignation is a protest and visceral reaction against the conduct of the paper's owner, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong," he wrote. "Soon-Shiong has made several moves to force the paper, over the forceful objections of his staff, into a posture more sympathetic to Donald Trump."
Contrasting Soon-Shiong's hands-on leadership style with The Washington Post's multicentibillionaire owner,Chicago Tribune contributor Steve Chapman wrote on social media:
Jeff Bezos: "Nobody ever wrecked the reputation of a respected newspaper as fast as I did."
Patrick Soon-Shiong: "Hold my beer."
The Los Angeles TimestoldThe Guardian that its management team "is currently reviewing the concerns" expressed in the editors' memo.
Decisions last week by the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post are a sign that an already-damaged democracy is entering a new stage of decay.
First the Los Angeles Times, then the Washington Post. Two of the country’s largest newspapers, including the one based in the nation’s capital, have now declared that they won’t endorse either major-party candidate for president. That’s irrefutable evidence that, in today’s United States of America, the self-interest of billionaires will always come before the needs of democracy. The financialization of journalism, which is so vital to a functioning democracy, has crushed the concept of a “free press.”
This is what oligarchy looks like.
This is why Democratic rhetoric about “saving democracy” has been so unpersuasive for undecided voters. Anti-Trump voters may know that democracy is important, but working people know something else: that what the billionaires want, they get. It’s hard to ask people to save something they feel they’ve already lost.
We’ve reached the point where a caudillo—a strongman figure—can openly threaten supposedly independent institutions and suppress opinions he doesn’t like.
Would a second Trump term do profound harm to democratic principles? Yes. Would this country’s vital institutions be cowed and manipulated with threats, hate speech, revenge, and the hideous lineaments of pseudo-Christian fascism? Yes. It’s a frightening prospect.
That may not be a big deal to this country’s elites, but they’d prefer the stability of a Kamala Harris presidency to the unpredictability of another Trump term. It’s better for their business interests. That’s why she’s raising so much more money than Trump.
But the billionaire owners of the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post don’t dare act against Trump, who has been open about his pursuit of vengeance and equally clear that he’ll reward his friends with government contracts.
These are the signs that an already-damaged democracy is entering a new stage of decay. We’ve reached the point where a caudillo—a strongman figure—can openly threaten supposedly independent institutions and suppress opinions he doesn’t like.
These newspapers’ cowardly actions prove, in one way, that Trump has already won. He has stripped the veneer off our democracy and revealed the cowardice and greed beneath it. It is the latest in the series of political innovations Trump has brought to American politics: rule by fear.
Whoever wins the election, we know now that naked intimidation works. The owners of American media are financially dependent on government contracts, tax breaks, and the good graces of the executive branch. Their reporters depend on government officials as sources. That’s why Trump’s threats are working.
These newspapers’ cowardly actions prove, in one way, that Trump has already won. He has stripped the veneer off our democracy and revealed the cowardice and greed beneath it.
Democrats could take Trump’s cynical lesson to heart, as Lyndon Johnson might if he were still around. But it would be better to call out a system that allows billionaires to censor the news because a bully is pressuring the billionaires.
What they shouldn’t do is talk about “saving” a democracy so few voters believe in. It would be wiser to talk about “restoring” it—although it never functioned perfectly, especially for Black voters and the poor.
Polling bears that out. A July 2024 Pew Research survey found that an overwhelming 72 percent of Americans don’t believe the United States is a good example of democracy. Democrats were slightly more likely to believe in American democracy than Republicans, but they’re hardly starry-eyed. Less than one-fourth of Democrats think we have an exemplary democracy.
The best way to talk about democracy is as an unrealized ideal. That would mean renouncing the endorsement of anti-democratic figures like Dick Cheney, who ascended to the vice presidency in an undemocratic power grab by the Supreme Court; Gen. John Kelly, who defended pro-slavery Civil War insurgents and committed ethical lapses; James Clapper, who gave false testimony to Congress; and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who approved illegal torture programs under President George W. Bush.
I understand that they’re trying to reach Republican voters who are uncomfortable with Trump’s totalitarian tendencies, but how many voters like that are there? This approach may alienate more people than it gains.
Trump may regain the presidency, or he may not. But either way, he has changed politics forever, reshaping it in his own image.
In any case, this campaign is almost over—“all over but the shouting,” as the old saying goes. Trump may regain the presidency, or he may not. But either way, he has changed politics forever, reshaping it in his own image. There will be candidates who don’t hesitate to use what he’s taught them this year.
Americans who believe in the ideal of democracy will have to fight even harder for it—now, and for generations to come.