A significant shake-up at the Los Angeles Times has sparked intense debate within the journalism community following the announcement by owner Patrick Soon-Shiong about the introduction of an artificial intelligence-powered 'bias meter' on the newspaper’s articles. This plan, intended to showcase 'both sides' of stories, has not only alarmed many staff members but has also led to resignations and claims of bias against the newspaper’s newsroom staff.
Soon-Shiong, who acquired the Times back in 2018, discussed the bias meter during his appearance on the podcast hosted by Scott Jennings, who will be joining the newspaper’s editorial board. He stated, “Somebody could understand as they read it [the article] has some level of bias.” He emphasized the need to counteract what he called confirmation bias, which is when readers only engage with information and perspectives confirming their pre-existing beliefs. This meter, scheduled for launch next month, will allegedly allow readers to access opposing viewpoints on any story by pressing a button.
The proposal has swiftly been met with critique, primarily from the Los Angeles Times Guild, which vocally expressed its outrage. The guild’s statement pointed out Soon-Shiong’s remarks have implied his staff possesses bias without providing substantive evidence or examples. It seemed to them as though he was aliening the very journalists employed to uphold the newspaper's integrity. “Our members—and all Times staffers—abide by strict ethics guidelines, which call for fairness, precision, transparency, vigilance against bias, and an earnest search to understand all sides of an issue,” the guild declared.
Further complicatiing matters was Soon-Shiong’s recent decision to block the newspaper's planned endorsement of Kamala Harris just weeks before the elections. This controversial move led several editorial board members to resign and inflamed tensions within the newsroom, resulting in thousands of readers canceling their subscriptions due to dissatisfaction with the abrupt editorial directives.
Columnist Harry Litman, who has served the Times for 15 years, penned his resignation as both protest and reaction to what he characterized as Soon-Shiong’s increasingly heavy-handed control over the editorial direction of the paper. Litman’s departure showcased broader employee sentiment. He noted, “Soon-Shiong has made several moves to force the paper, over the forceful objections of his staff, to adopt attitudes more sympathetic to Donald Trump.” This reflects the perception among many staff members and former colleagues who now view Soon-Shiong as the most significant threat to the paper's integrity, rather than the savior they had once hoped for.
Litman isn’t alone. The backlash against Soon-Shiong's approach has led to rumors of demoralization among journalists, with some staffers feeling increasingly worried about their editorial freedom. Reportedly, soon after Soon-Shiong’s actions, comments and critiques aimed at the government and other establishments, often portrayed as mainstream media perspectives, were met with backlash on social media, particularly from right-leaning audiences. Earlier, Soon-Shiong had portrayed himself as supportive of various civil rights movements, including Black Lives Matter, but now appears to be appealing to the MAGA crowd, according to some media analysts.
These abruptly shifted tactics could be affecting not only the Times' reputation but also its ability to attract and retain talented journalists. The guild reassured its members, stating, “We will guard against any efforts to improperly or unfairly alter our reporting.” This commitment to protect journalistic integrity is becoming ever more significant as battles between corporate owners and newsroom editors intensify.
The backlash over the bias meter and the perceived shift toward conservative viewpoints has sparked discussions about the future of journalism, especially at major outlets. Critics of Soon-Shiong's strategy have highlighted potential dangers of utilizing AI to label stories, framing it as reductive and undermining nuanced public discourse. While some outlets, like Newsweek, have experimented with their own 'fairness meter' to provide diverse perspectives, Soon-Shiong’s approach raises serious questions about the efficacy and ethics of reported content being tagged for bias.
Former journalists and observers alike are closely monitoring how Soon-Shiong’s vision for the Los Angeles Times will unfurl amid this wave of contention. Whether the introduction of technological solutions like the bias meter will solve its perceived problems, or merely create new ones, remains uncertain. Addressing concerns about media bias is undoubtedly important, but it raises larger philosophical and ethical discussions about the role of artificial intelligence and editorial independence.
Despite the criticisms, Soon-Shiong’s intentions stem from his observation of what he described as mainstream media's failures to adequately separate news from opinion, which he believes is integral to restoring faith among readers. Yet, such sweeping structural changes at legacy news organizations also touch on alliances drawn from political interests and audience perceptions, something the Los Angeles Times apparently navigates precariously.
With the looming implementation of the new bias meter and continuing shifts within the editorial board, readers and staff will be watching closely to see how the broader narrative around the Los Angeles Times not only plays out but also how it might reshape discussions about journalism at large. Will this move help restore trust or merely sow more discord? Only time will tell.