In this monologue, conservative commentator Dennis Prager critiques the Los Angeles Times, describing it as a left‑wing rag that has abandoned any claim to neutrality. He recounts how the paper’s owner, Soon Siung, instructed the editorial board not to endorse any presidential candidate, prompting the resignation of the editorial page head and two other editors. Prager mocks the resignations, arguing that an endorsement would not change the paper’s already liberal readership. He contrasts the LA Times’ financial fragility—low circulation, minimal advertising—with the backing of wealthy owners like Jeff Bezos at the Washington Post, suggesting that such owners, not the free market, keep major newspapers afloat. Prager also highlights the owner’s request for a non‑partisan factual analysis of candidates, which he finds absurd, and laments the lack of job prospects for the departing editors, questioning where they might find work in a shrinking newspaper industry.
Chapters
The owner of the Los Angeles Times told the Los Angeles Times not to endorse anybody. Los Angeles Times is a left-wing publication. That's all it is. It's nothing more than that. It was once. It was— I wrote for it for many years. They actually— huh? Well, that was before my time when it was conservative, but it was conservative, you know. But it's become a left-wing rag sheet. And the amazing thing is the people on the left don't think that way. They think, great, we have turned the newspaper into a left-wing voice. That's it. We represent the Democratic Party and its left wing. So the owner, for reasons I have no inkling with regard to, said don't endorse any candidate. Of course they were going to endorse Kamala Harris. I mean, all their news, all the news items, the news pieces and the commentaries, opinion pieces are all pro-Kamala Harris, pro-Democrat. So they're resigning. The head of the editorial page resigned and now two other Dennis Prager, to other editors have resigned. It's such, it's so fascinating. If I were they, I would not resign. I mean, what difference does it make whom the LA Times endorses? Its readers are left-wing and everything it stands for is left-wing. Is there anybody who would read a an LA Times editorial endorsement, because the columnists are all endorsing her. So who reads their editorials anyway? Not many people. And by the way, I get the LA Times, just for the record, because I feel I'm obligated to know what the left says. But if, let's say, I were a conservative running a conservative newspaper and the owner said, "Don't endorse any presidential candidate." You think I'd resign? No, what I would say is, "Okay, we won't have a— so we'll just keep having editorials or, excuse me, columns written on behalf of the Republicans and our news items." On behalf of the Democrats? No, no, no, if I were conservative running a newspaper. I don't understand why they resigned. Oh, we have— we want to have independent control of the paper. Okay, it sounds, it sounds great, but there is an owner. If it weren't for the owner, you wouldn't be in business. Nobody buys the paper. That's the joke. These people should be bringing candy to this owner. He keeps a piece of crap in business. It has virtually no advertising. I look up its circulation. I'm so curious what its circulation is. No young people read it. Thanks to this owner— it's so fascinating, the hubris of leftists is beyond belief. I'm glad they quit. Now they don't have a job. They don't deserve to have a job. They ruined the newspaper. But, but from their perspective, all they should have vis-à-vis the owner is gratitude. It's not the free market that keeps the Los Angeles Times functioning The Washington Post functioning. It's Jeff Bezos who keeps the Washington Post functioning, and it's this Chinese American, I think— is that right? Taiwanese American, is that what he is? Who keeps the Los Angeles Times functioning. So we told them not to write an endorsement. Like, okay, fine, all right, big deal. It's so fascinating. Good. I'm happy. They don't deserve jobs. These people have only done harm. They've ruined the newspaper. But it's, it's ingratitude. Thy name is progressivism. Well, in a message posted on X on Wednesday afternoon, this is from The Hollywood Reporter. It's also, by the way, did they ever put I put out a piece on PragerU. They came and interviewed me. Times owner Soon Siung said he had offered the editorial board the chance to write a factual analysis of all the positive and negative policies by each candidate during their tenures at the White House and how these policies affected the nation. That wasn't enough. Like they would write an objective analysis. He had also asked the editorial board to present their vision for how policies outlined during the candidates' campaigns might play out in the next 4 years if they were elected. And that, that's a little more significant. In this way, with this clear and nonpartisan information side by side, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being president for the next 4 years, he wrote. Okay, that's hilarious. I have no idea why the man sustains the LA Times. It's— but as I said, these people who quit because he wanted them to write an analysis instead of an endorsement, do you understand what they're saying? We have contempt for you who made our jobs possible. Okay, I wonder what— I really would love to know where they'll end up. Will they end up, I don't know, at the Washington Post, at the Chicago Tribune, at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, or any other left-wing newspaper? Where will they end up? There are no jobs anymore for these people. There exactly, there aren't jobs. That was why I asked it. It's not like it's a bull market for job seekers. Washington Post is losing millions. The Washington Post is losing millions.
