Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire publisher of the Los Angeles Times, recently revealed that the newspaper would employ a technology that will tell “both sides” of every story. Journalists are outraged by the implication that their stories are biased. After the publisher’s decision to prohibit an endorsement in the Presidential race, the chief editor of the editorial board resigned, followed by others.
At that time, the published defended
The New York Times reported:
Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner of The Los Angeles Times, said on Thursday that he planned to introduce a “bias meter” next to the paper’s news and opinion coverage as part of his campaign to overhaul the publication.
Dr. Soon-Shiong, who in October quashed a planned presidential endorsement for Vice President Kamala Harris from The Los Angeles Times’s editorial board, said in an interview that aired on Scott Jennings’s podcast “Flyover Country” that he had begun to see his newspaper as “an echo chamber and not a trusted source.”
He previously said he planned to remake the paper’s editorial board and add more conservative voices. He has asked Mr. Jennings, a CNN political commentator and a Republican strategist, to join it.
Dr. Soon-Shiong, who bought The Times in 2018, said on the podcast that he had been working with a team to create the so-called bias meter using technology he had been building in his health care businesses.
On news and opinion articles, “you have a bias meter so somebody could understand, as a reader, that the source of the article has some level of bias,” he explained in the interview. “And what we need to do is not have what we call confirmation bias, and then that story automatically — the reader can press a button and get both sides of that exact same story based on that story, and then give comments.”
He said he planned to introduce the tool in January.
Dr. Soon-Shiong’s latest comments set off immediate pushback from the L.A. Times Guild, which represents journalists at the paper.
“Recently, the newspaper’s owner has publicly suggested his staff harbors bias, without offering evidence or examples,” the union’s leadership said in a statement on Thursday. The union said all Times staff members abided by ethics guidelines that call for “fairness, precision, transparency, vigilance against bias and an earnest search to understand all sides of an issue.”
In the comments that followed the article, many ridiculed the idea of the “bias meter.” One imagined an article that reported on an earthquake rated 9.5, which said that people feared that the earthquake would cause massive destruction of lives and property; those seeking a different perspective would press the bias meter to read an article saying that most people were not afraid of a 9.5 earthquake and say it’s no big deal.

If one person tells you it’s raining and another says it’s not, you don’t report both sides, you look out the damn window.
LikeLike
What does he want “his” newspaper to be? The Fox so-called News broadsheet?
LikeLike
People did say they wanted the fairness doctrine back.
LikeLike
Ha ha ha! Good one!
LikeLike
We need the earthquake’s side of the story.
LikeLike
One of many amusing things about this is that many of the people who presumably are outraged by this proposal would love it if the The NY Times had a “bias meter” for all the stories they think are biased in favor of Donald Trump. When this bozo suggests journalists are biased, we get the outrage. But when the Times fails to note that Trump is an insurrectionist every time he’s mentioned in a news story, we get to hear about how the Times journalists covering Trump are biased.
Perhaps the truth is that (i) all people, including journalists, have biases, (ii) for the most part journalists at the most reputable papers are professionals who do a fairly good (if sometimes imperfect) job of reporting news as objectively as possible.
LikeLike
where is the middle ground between democracy, which depends on the truth, and fascism, which draws its sustenance from the big lie?
perhaps my bias is now on display, but I feel I have been watching the body politic and the society around me being purposely inched toward the right for the last 40 years. We seem to grow closer and closer to a middle ground between freedom and oppression, rather than a middle ground between views of freedom.
LikeLike
There is no middle ground. Where is the middle ground between the mother covering her child and the person doing the shooting? Ain’t none.
And we have not “inched right”, we have surpassed the limits of the “right” and many have gone backwards, regressing to reactionary/revanchist stances. With the main problem being faith belief revanchism.
LikeLike
““you have a bias meter so somebody could understand, as a reader, that the source of the article has some level of bias,”“
Huh??? Duh???
Every piece of writing, especially journalistic writing has a given level of bias whether acknowledged or not.
I’m currently rereading a book from the early 60s entitled “Ethics in Speech Communication” by Thomas R. Nilson. It’s an excellent read about what constitutes ethical speech.
And I’d say that now the vast majority of mass media and internet communication/writings would not be considered to be “ethical” by his reckoning. We can thank Bernays for much of the unethical usages of language.
LikeLike
And to think, I thought Dr. Sooon-Shiong was rescuing and intended to revive the LATimes when he purchased it in 2018. I didn’t realize he had plans to change the format to the print version of Fox “News”. To have Scott Jennings be part of his journalistic vision, even more than what he now contributes, says it all.
How naive am I?
LikeLike
Perilously close to being a MAGA cultista! 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump pressed oil executives to give $1 billion for his campaign, people in industry say – POLITICO
Trump also reached out to billionares to donate, and he would pay them back with favors once he was reelected.
“The megadonors who fueled Trump and the Republican Party and what they may want in the next 4 years”
By Daniel Klaidman
Updated on: November 14, 2024 / 10:39 AM EST / CBS News
More than $20 billion flooded into the 2024 presidential campaign, shattering the record for political spending in a single election. In an accelerating trend in American politics, Donald Trump, Kamala Harris and their allies raised colossal sums of money from billionaires.
A majority of these megadonors were Republicans, according to Open Secrets, the nonpartisan watchdog organization that tracks the influence of money on politics. And with Trump’s decisive victory, they hit the jackpot.
So, who are these high rollers and what do they want in return for their generosity?
The megadonors who fueled Trump and the Republican Party and what they may want in the next 4 years – CBS News
LikeLike
The problem is that it isn’t just the LA Times – even the NYT believes that journalists who favor the truth and object to shameless and flagrant lies are “improperly biased” and such terrible “bias” must be excised from all of their news reporting. Bias can only measured by whether Republicans’ views are presented as just as credible as Democrats’ views. Bias cannot be measured by comparing reporting to what is actually true – doing so would be demonstrating extreme ‘bias’ against the party that flagrantly lies, and since that party is the Republicans, it is not allowed, according to the NYT practice of journalism.
People also said that the NYT was absolutely correct and demonstrated the kind of admirable journalism “without bias” that they admired in the 1930s up to 1941, when the NYT spent years reporting that Hitler was a normal and even admirable German leader whose antisemitism and threat to the rest of Europe was greatly exaggerated (emphasizing how many very good Germans voted for Hitler). These folks said that it was absolutely impossible for the NYT reporting to show any improper “bias” when it normalized Hitler (minimizing the negatives and amplifying the positives), because the NYT had Jewish owners! That was basically the only defense offered by NYT apologists about their “admirably unbiased” pro-Hitler coverage – that the NYT was owned by Jews, so by definition that meant that their pro-Hitler news coverage was really anti- Hitler.
(see “The New York Times’ ‘Nazi Correspondent’”, The Tablet, June 3, 2021)
That supposed “truism” – that a newspaper owned by Jews could only be biased AGAINST Hitler, and that a newspaper owned by liberals could only be biased AGAINST Trump has been debunked many times. But people still believe it. Just like they believe that Germans who voted for a guy spewing antisemitism and lies to demonize Jews were good people who did not have an ounce of antipathy toward Jews. Just like the NYT keeps writing “unbiased” articles showing us how good those Trump voters are.
The LA Times and NYT understand that real bias is if they wrote anything critical of a voter just because they voted for the leader of the racist birther movement who spewed racist and xenophobic lies demonizing non-white, non-Christian, non-Republicans, and promised voters that those people would experience retribution if Trump won. Trump voters are as admirable as Hitler voters were portrayed in the 1930s — they simply wanted to make America great just like Hitler voters wanted to make Germany great. Why would the media bother itself by mentioning exactly HOW Hitler planned to make Germany great or how Trump plans to make America great?
It would be better if the liberal media was simply shut down rather than to give the “liberal stamp of approval” on Trump’s fascist agenda, just like they did to 1930s Germany. Right up until it was too late to matter.
Better that the only media identified as “liberal” told the truth rather than amplified and legitimized the lies. The NYT did more harm to Democrats like Dukakis, Gore, Clintons, Kerry, and Kamala Harris than the right wing media ever could.
LikeLike
This guy spiked an editorial criticizing some of Trump’s cabinet picks. Stick a fork in the LA Times, they have no editorial independence and their reputation is shot.
LikeLike
FLERP,
You are right. Most of the editorial board has left the LA Times. Publishers should not destroy the independence of those who write editorials.
LikeLike
I am afraid to say that I love the LA Times and have gotten it for decades even with the large increases in cost.
If the owner decides to have an opinion meter to balance viewpoints, I will terminate my subscription at the end of December. I doubt that the paper will survive such a change in course and my heart goes out to the staff, the writers and all those who are responsible for the paper’s excellence.
LikeLike
I too love the LA Times.
The publisher is destroying staff morale.
In late November, he prevented the publication of another editorial, one commenting on the unworthiness of some of Trump’s Cabinet appointees.
LikeLike