Leadership at the Los Angeles Times is submitting to the race grievance crowd and embarrassing itself in the process

The L.A. Times is a racist newspaper.  No that is not what I believe, it is what they call themselves.  No it is not because that do not care about Hispanic, Native American, Asian-American or white lives—which they don’t, they believe only black lives matter.  Would you read a racist paper?

“At the Los Angeles Times, the “emotionally wrenching discussions” include a seemingly endless list of demands covering everything from pay raises to additional job openings specifically for minority journalists and, as is inevitably the case with all issues over race, a public apology.

This is, of course, the natural evolution of the moment once social justice got involved. What was initially a serious issue over race and police brutality has now become a vehicle for anyone looking for advancement based on their claims to oppression, grievance, and victimhood, whether legitimate or not. And they almost never are.

It started at the Los Angeles Times with a letter to Soon-Shiong and top editors from the “black caucus,” a subset of the paper’s newsroom union representing black staffers.

“The nation’s reckoning over race has put a much-needed spotlight on inequities at The Times,” the letter said. “We are in a crisis and it is not new.” It continued, “We cannot allow this to continue. This is as much a moral imperative, as a financial one. The Times will not survive without winning over subscribers who are not white, and the only way to do that is to have a diverse and inclusive workforce.”

If you are a journalist, why would you work at a newspaper you believe is racist?  Can you trust anything they write?  When the Times gives them what they want, is that enough proof that it is a racist rag?  Why should Progressives read or advertiser in a racist newspaper.  I would hope that Hollywood, car dealers, and retail stores stop financing a self-proclaimed racist newspaper.  I promise not to read it, will you?

Leadership at the Los Angeles Times is submitting to the race grievance crowd and embarrassing itself in the process

by Eddie Scarry. Washington Examiner,  6/25/20 

To read the Los Angeles Times’s coverage of its own internal drama about race and “inclusion” is to go through all nine circles of hell in the span of 2,500 words.

The paper on Wednesday wrote of the “painful internal reckoning” that staff and leadership are confronting on racism under the ownership of Patrick Soon-Shiong, a South African immigrant who is of Asian descent. (The irony comes the same way I enjoy my mimosas — bottomless.)

“After the May 25 killing of George Floyd, a Black man, by a white police officer in Minneapolis, journalists around the country have engaged in similar emotionally wrenching discussions about ingrained practices that have marginalized people of color,” reads the self-indulgent article.

At the Los Angeles Times, the “emotionally wrenching discussions” include a seemingly endless list of demands covering everything from pay raises to additional job openings specifically for minority journalists and, as is inevitably the case with all issues over race, a public apology.

This is, of course, the natural evolution of the moment once social justice got involved. What was initially a serious issue over race and police brutality has now become a vehicle for anyone looking for advancement based on their claims to oppression, grievance, and victimhood, whether legitimate or not. And they almost never are.

It started at the Los Angeles Times with a letter to Soon-Shiong and top editors from the “black caucus,” a subset of the paper’s newsroom union representing black staffers.

“The nation’s reckoning over race has put a much-needed spotlight on inequities at The Times,” the letter said. “We are in a crisis and it is not new.” It continued, “We cannot allow this to continue. This is as much a moral imperative, as a financial one. The Times will not survive without winning over subscribers who are not white, and the only way to do that is to have a diverse and inclusive workforce.”

The letter then listed a series of “demands” — yes, that’s the word they chose — which included hiring 18 more black journalists to reflect the population of Los Angeles County, a career advancement “pipeline” specifically for black writers, and a public apology to the minorities “maligned over the years with tone-deaf coverage.”

There would be nothing wrong with hiring more black journalists, but it’s hard enough to find one good journalist, let alone 18 who meet additional exclusionary criteria. Black people only account for about 12% of graduates with a journalism degree each year. Just as with every other race, only a very few will go on to get a job at a newspaper, and even fewer will get a job at a major metropolitan newspaper.

As for a “pipeline” that functions solely to promote black journalists, what would you call that other than affirmative action? People who advocate for those policies never want to call them that because it’s rightfully associated with quotas, but we’re getting to the point in which the social justice crowd has shed all pretense as to what it is they’re after. So, how about the rest of us do the same and call the spade for what it is?

And, of course, the public apology serves as nothing more than self-debasement and submission.

This is all covered extensively in my book, Privileged Victims: How America’s Culture Fascists Hijacked the Country and Elevated Its Worst People.

Everything touched by social justice turns to grime.

Even the complaints in the Los Angeles Times’s story about its “painful internal reckoning” are nonsensical. One black former editor at the paper left for a better job at a bigger newspaper, USA Today, after she “realized she would never have the chance to be a manager, with a staff, at The Times.”

Another black reporter “who was plucked by a larger newspaper, recalled his hurt when The Times showed little interest in keeping him.”

If it weren’t for this being pushed as a story about racism and oppression, the headline on this article would actually read, “People dissatisfied with current jobs leave company for better jobs.”

In what other professional field does this not happen? Before I worked at the Washington Examiner, I had a job that I enjoyed at a different news website. My previous employers didn’t bother to counteroffer, and not once did I think it was because I’m a gay Latino. If the staff at the Los Angeles Times haven’t noticed, that paper is losing money hand over fist. The only reason it’s even afloat is because the owner keeps dumping dollars into the project.

Scared, Soon-Shiong and the other editors have publicly said they need to “do better” and that changes they’re making are just the beginning.

This isn’t about racism. It’s about advancing personal interests under the guise of grievance.

About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.

Comments

  1. W. Trent Saxton says

    So tell us …how can one determine the race or ethnicity of the printed “word”. Am I to assume by the Authors name that they are a Journalist of “color”? I have a suggestion…all journalists shall use an indicator at the end of their name that alerts the reader they are a certain race or ethnicity. By doing so, the reader will be able to see the world through the eyes of the authors culture and experiences. I thought you got to the top because you wrote fabulous stories and articles not because of your color? The words are there as clear as black and white. I never once thought of the color of the person writing them until “after” I read their work and in most cases; I didn’t investigate or care.

Speak Your Mind

*