Billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times says he will take the newspaper public in the coming year
During an interview on Monday's 'The Daily Show With Jon Stewart,' Soon-Shiong said the move would allow the Times 'to be democratized and allow the public to have ownership of this paper.'
Soon-Shiong said he's working with 'an organization that's putting that together right now.' He didn't identify the organization or say whether the deal would involve an initial public offer to sell shares of the company or another investment arrangement.
'Whether you're right, left, Democrat, Republican, you're an American. So the opportunity for us to provide a paper that is the voices of the people, truly the voices of the people, is important,' he said.
Soon-Shiong, a biotech billionaire, acquired the Times as part of a $500 million deal, returning it to local ownership two decades after the Chandler family sold it to Tribune Co. Soon-Shiong's purchase raised hopes after years of cutbacks, circulation declines and leadership changes.
But like much of the media industry, the Times has continued to face financial difficulties, losing money and subscribers. Last year the company said it would lay off at least 115 employees — more than 20% of the newsroom — in one of the largest staff cuts in the newspaper's history.
Also in 2024, executive editor Kevin Merida suddenly stepped down after a 2 1/2-year tenure at the newspaper that spanned the coronavirus pandemic and three Pulitzer Prizes, as well as a period of layoffs and contentious contract negotiations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
9 minutes ago
- Fox News
House subcommittee voted in favor of subpoenaing Bill and Hillary Clinton over Ghislaine Maxwell connection
A House panel voted in favor of subpoenaing former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday. Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., offered a motion during a House Oversight Committee subcommittee hearing to call on Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., to subpoena people with possible links to Ghislaine Maxwell, the imprisoned former associate of late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. "I have a motion to subpoena the following individuals to expand the full committees investigation into Miss Maxwell – and the list reads as follows: William Jefferson Clinton, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, James Brian Comey, Loretta Elizabeth Lynch, Eric Hampton Holder, Jr., Merrick Brian Garland, Robert Swan Mueller III, William Pelham Barr, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions the third, and Alberto Gonzales. That's the full list, Mr. Chairman. And that's the motion," Perry said. The motion passed by voice vote, meaning there was not an individual roll call. The subpoenas would actually need to be issued by Comer to be active. A House Oversight Committee aide told Fox News Digital, "The subpoenas will be issued in the near future." It comes after Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., a member of the progressive "Squad," pushed for a vote on her own motion to subpoena any files related to Epstein. Republican lawmakers have dealt with a barrage of media scrutiny on Epstein's case over the last two weeks. It's a side effect of the fallout over a recent Department of Justice (DOJ) memo effectively declaring the matter closed. Figures on the far-right have hammered Trump officials like Attorney General Pam Bondi, accusing them of going back on earlier vows of transparency. At Trump's direction, the DOJ is moving to have grand jury files related to Epstein's case unsealed. Bondi is looking into whether imprisoned former Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell will speak with federal authorities as well. A House GOP-led motion directing Comer to subpoena Maxwell passed the House Oversight Committee unanimously on Tuesday, and Comer issued the subpoena the following day. But Democrats have nonetheless seized on the Republican discord with newfound calls of their own for transparency in Epstein's case. Wednesday's hearing by the Oversight Committee's subcommittee on federal law enforcement was unrelated to Epstein – but it's part of a pattern of Democratic lawmakers in the House using any opportunity to force Republicans into an uncomfortable political position on the issue. This is a breaking story. Please check in for updates.
Boston Globe
10 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Josh Kraft is defining himself — the wrong way
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It makes what was already an uphill climb against an incumbent mayor an even tougher battle for Kraft — one that if she wins, will leave Wu with an even loftier platform than she had after her testimony last March in Washington. The mayor who faced down Republican lawmakers on the hot topic of immigration with Advertisement Kraft, who has never before run for political office, has squandered much of his reputation as a decent guy who did good things for young people in Boston as the head of the nonprofit Boys & Girls Clubs of Boston. Instead of emphasizing that positive story from the start, he went on the attack. The topics — from bike lanes and school safety to the cost of Wu's White Stadium renovation plans and lingering drug and homeless problems at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Melnea Cass Boulevard — are fair game. But too often, Kraft's proffered solution is further study rather than a substantive alternative. Advertisement Meanwhile, he tapped into Meanwhile, by accepting the money that flows to a political action committee through his father's connections, Josh Kraft gets the baggage that goes with it, too. As Wu puts that baggage before Boston voters, no one can say she is taking reelection for granted. Advertisement The Kraft campaign It is true, as the Kraft campaign has also noted, that Wu has her own transparency problems. She has been less than forthcoming about estimated costs for the White Stadium renovation. Information about other city matters, such as the death of a 5-year-old boy who was hit and killed by a Boston school bus, is also slow in coming. That is Kraft's case to make. But despite the millions at his disposal and the name recognition that goes with his family, so far he has not been able to do it in a way that makes a difference in this race. Advertisement The poll that put Wu 30 points up also asked those surveyed to respond to this statement: 'Michelle Wu has had some challenges, but Josh Kraft is not the answer.' Sixty percent agreed. Just 25 percent did not. Only Kraft can change that conclusion and it's getting late for that. Joan Vennochi is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Columbia must do more to root out hate on campus — starting in the faculty lounge
Columbia University's long-overdue crackdown on the dozens of students who violently took over Butler Library, and the agreement it reached Tuesday with the White House, mark significant if belated steps toward accountability. For nearly two years, these students have occupied campus buildings, spread terrorist propaganda, praised convicted terrorists, posted Nazi-style antisemitic flyers, smashed doors, disrupted classes, harassed Jewish students and openly endorsed 'liberation by any means necessary' — including the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre. Backed by Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a coalition of over 90 pro-terror student groups, they have platformed speakers linked to US-designated terrorists, called for the death and expulsion of Jews and Israelis, and urged Hamas to target Jewish Americans. Now they are finally facing consequences. Yet after months of calling for accountability, I take no pleasure in their expulsions and long-term suspensions. Let's be clear: the students who stormed Butler Library got exactly what they deserved. Any functioning society must mete out penalties for those who break the law, and college campuses, which play a central role in shaping young Americans, must uphold that principle. Still, as I watch the surge of anti-Jewish, anti-Israel and anti-American hate rise on campus, I can't help but ask: What if the administration had acted sooner? Could earlier intervention — as I have been calling for since Oct. 12, 2023 — have prevented this descent into terror-glorifying chaos? Could these students — many of whom came to campus with limited knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — have avoided radicalization if the university had acted earlier? Would it have been spared its current reputation as a hub of antisemitic and anti-American extremism? It shouldn't have taken lawsuits, federal scrutiny and campus-wide chaos for Columbia's leadership to finally do the right thing. But now that the administration finally seems ready to take antisemitism and support for terrorism seriously, the effort mustn't stop with students. If these disciplinary actions are more than just a PR stunt — unlike the quiet reversal of suspensions after the violent Hamilton Hall takeover and the administration's habit of speaking out of both sides of its mouth — then the university must confront the source of the ideology that fueled this movement. Because the truth is these students didn't invent this hatred; they learned it on campus. They were radicalized by Columbia professors who called Oct. 7 a 'military action,' who expressed 'jubilation and awe' at the rape, murder and torture of Israeli civilians and who cheered on their violent takeover of university buildings. Many of them tenured and untouchable, they've long escaped consequences. But if Columbia is genuinely committed to solving this crisis, it must begin by holding faculty members accountable for their role in fueling campus unrest — and addressing the ideology behind their students' actions. Columbia, like many North American universities, has become a breeding ground for what I call 'American Intellectual Antisemitism,' a belief system that casts Jews as white settler-colonialists conspiring to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in an effort to create a Jewish supremacist ethnostate. Unlike the loud, swastika-waving hatred of the far right — with its grotesque and conspiratorial caricatures of Jews as society's omnipotent parasites — academia's insidious form of antisemitism cloaks itself in scholarly jargon and moral pretense. Dressed up in flimsy scholarship and ideological distortions, it rewrites history, ignores archaeological and scholarly records and reframes violence as justice. By manipulating words like 'oppression' and 'decolonialization,' it recasts ancient bigotry into fashionable academic critique — but make no mistake, it is antisemitism all the same. Unless Columbia directly confronts the professors who indoctrinate students into this worldview, its crisis will only deepen. While students like Mahmoud Khalil (who still refuses to condemn Hamas for slaughtering civilians) and Mohsen Madawai (who once led a Fatah student group and praised his cousins in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad) are the public face of this movement, its true architects are the professors. The responsibility — and the blame — rests with them. The surge of illegal pro-Hamas encampments on American campuses last year revealed that, left unchecked, campus unrest can quickly escalate into a national crisis. The question now is not only what actions Columbia will take to pull this bigotry out by its roots, but whether other universities will learn from its grievous mistakes. At a time when antisemitism and support for terrorism are reaching record highs, one thing remains crystal clear: What begins in the faculty lounge doesn't always stop at the campus gates. It's time to confront the academic machinery that fuels this hatred and dismantle it at the source. Shai Davidai is an activist, podcaster and former professor at Columbia University who is currently writing a book on American Intellectual Antisemitism.
