Billionaire LA Times owner announces he's taking the newspaper public
'It's important for the paper to have the voices of all, and that's what I wanted to do, right?' he said on 'The Daily Show.' '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, so I'm going to announce something to you tonight… we're literally going to take the LA Times public and allow it to be democratized.'
Soon-Shiong bought the newspaper for $500 million in 2018.
He said the offering would allow the public to have ownership of the newspaper and a say on the board.
He didn't delve into specifics as to how that would look in practice.
'I'm working with an organization that's putting that together right now,' Soon-Shiong told host Jon Stewart of the process of taking the newspaper public.
4 LA Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong appears on 'The Daily Show' on July 21, 2025.
The Daily Show/YouTube
4 The Los Angeles Times building in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. on Feb. 7, 2018.
AP
'Ethics get cloudy if, in fact, the truth is not told,' Soon-Shiong said on Monday. 'Our institutions today, there's so much distrust. Unless you have truth and trust, those two words, I think we're not going to have any healing in the country… I live this American dream. I'm an immigrant here, right? So to me, this is really a wonderful opportunity for us to have the privilege of being an American.'
The interview with Stewart mainly delved into Soon-Shiong's efforts to cure cancer.
In addition to holding the Times, Soon-Shiong is a surgeon, medical researcher and biotech entrepreneur who's seeking to develop a cancer vaccine.
The decision to go public comes amid news of the Los Angeles Times' financial struggles. In April, AdWeek reported the paper had lost $50 million in 2024, the same year it laid off 115 staffers.
4 Soon-Shiong shakes hands with President Donald Trump at the Lusail Palace in Doha on May 14, 2025.
AFP via Getty Images
4 The decision to go public comes amid news of the Los Angeles Times' financial struggles.
AFP via Getty Images
Soon-Shiong's tenure has also been marked by discontent on the staff, particularly over his recent efforts to moderate its content.
He defended his moves to reform the paper's left-leaning opinion pages in an interview with Fox News Digital earlier this year.
'I really wanted to make sure that we are a trusted source for all Americans,' Soon-Shiong said in January. 'Clearly, California is blue, very blue. When our opinion pages were so one-sided, and these are just opinions, I wanted to make sure that everybody had a chance to voice their own opinion. And more importantly, opinion based on facts, not on speculation.'
He also incensed liberal media observers when, like Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, he yanked a planned endorsement of Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.
Soon-Shiong has expressed past willingness to work with the Trump administration on his cancer moonshot and disappointment at a lack of partnership from the Biden administration.
Fox News Digital has reached out to the LA Times for additional comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
26 minutes ago
- UPI
Rescission of public broadcast funding threatens rural areas
1 of 2 | The headquarters for National Public Radio (NPR) is seen in Washington, D.C., on May 27. The congressional rescissions bill passed by the U.S. House and Senate cuts more than $1 billion in funding for public broadcasting. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo July 30 (UPI) -- Publicly funded radio and television broadcasts bring news and emergency alerts to rural and underserved populations and the congressional rescissions bill will have some at risk of going off air. The U.S. Senate passed the rescissions bill earlier this month, peeling back about $9 billion in funding for public broadcasting, foreign aid and other services as recommended by the Department of Government Efficiency. The decision could lead to growing news deserts as rural communities lose what is often their main source of local coverage and critical information. For public broadcasting, the bill cuts the funding allocated for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. For fiscal year 2026, $535 million had been approved in the appropriations bill passed in March 2024. Earlier this year, Congress approved $535 million in funding for fiscal year 2027. Public broadcast funding is directed by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It is a private, nonprofit organization that was authorized by Congress to oversee government public media funds in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. Funding is distributed to more than 1,500 public television and radio stations. "The vote by the U.S. Senate and House to eliminate federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting will have profound, lasting, negative consequences for every American," Patricia Harrison, CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, said in a statement. "Without federal funding, many local public radio and television stations will be forced to shut down. Parents will have fewer high quality learning resources available for their children. Millions of Americans will have less trustworthy information about their communities, states, country, and world with which to make decisions about the quality of their lives." Government funding for public media is distributed to stations based on need. Stations that broadcast to rural, underserved and minority populations receive a higher portion of their funding from the CPB due in part to not having access to as many resources as those in highly populated areas. Tribal radio Tribal stations will be among those most deeply affected by the loss of federal funding. KSUT Tribal Radio broadcasts to the Four Corners region of the Southwest. It has served listeners in Northwest New Mexico, Southwest Colorado, Southeast Utah and Northeast Arizona since it was founded in 1976 by the Southern Ute Tribe. Four tribes are served by the station as well: the Southern Ute Tribe, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, the Jicarilla Apache Nation in Northern New Mexico and the Navajo Nation in northeast Arizona and Northwest New Mexico. Much of KSUT's coverage area is already considered a news desert -- an area that lacks adequate local news coverage. Each of the states KSUT broadcasts to have lost at least 15% of their local newspapers since 2004, according to The Expanding News Desert project at the University of North Carolina's Hussman School of Journalism and Media. "We chose with the limited resources we have for original reporting to focus on indigenous affairs. That certainly is not a service that folks get of regional news and information on Native American issues," Tami Graham, KSUT executive director, told UPI. About 20% of KSUT's budget, about $330,000, comes from federal funding, Graham said. With that funding source gone, the station is planning to fundraise rapidly to maintain its level of service. Due to its rural coverage area, it does not have access to the kinds of philanthropic resources that stations in larger markets have." "It's a double whammy losing that funding and not being in major markets," Graham said. "We have great listeners who are very supportive. We're looking for where we can shave and cut costs. We're trying our best to avoid any major staffing cuts." KSUT's goal is to raise about $600,000 in the next two years to backfill the lost federal funding. Fundraising, listener membership, business underwriters and grant funding outside of the federal government are four revenue resources it will lean on. "How we survive in the meantime is resilience. We're going to survive," Graham said. "There will be stations that will go dark. I have no doubt about it. Hopefully that will just be temporary." Emergency broadcasts Public media is oftentimes the only source of emergency alerts and critical information in rural areas. State and local alerts are pushed through public radio and television broadcasts through the Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency Alerts. Public media stations were crucial in Southern California during the wildfires in January. According to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 111 Wireless Emergency Alerts were shared with more than 18 million people in affected and at-risk areas. In 2024, there was a 30% increase over 2023 in Wireless Emergency Alerts issued by federal, state and local authorities. Public radio is particularly crucial in rural regions where cell and Internet service is unreliable if not completely unavailable. "Turning on your radio can be a lifeline," Graham said. "Old-fashion radio in a lot of these tribal communities is really important because they know that's how they're going to get their information if it's a rapidly developing wildfire or COVID information. We were hugely important to communities about what restrictions there were on tribal lands related to COVID." Wildfires are the most persistent threat in the KSUT coverage area. "There's wildfires happening now in our region," Graham said. "We pride ourselves on keeping any updates around evacuation notices and road closures on our airwaves. We put a lot of energy into making sure we're taking the information we're finding and then relaying that to the degree that we can for those folks who may not have the ability to gather that information for themselves because of a lack of connectivity." Viktor Pickard, C. Edwin Baker Professor of Media Policy and Political Economy at the University of Pennsylvania, told UPI cuts to public media are likely to cost lives. "Many rural communities are going to lose emergency alert systems," he said. It's not hyperbolic to say these cuts will at least indirectly lead to people losing their lives." 'An already vulnerable system' Pickard said a significant percentage of local public media stations are likely to shut down in the next year with a disproportionate number of them serving rural areas. The Trump administration may oversee this significant blow to public broadcasting but partisan attacks on the system are not new. "The budgetary concerns are really a red herring," Pickard said. "It's much more ideological." Republican opposition to public media can be traced back to its inception, according to Pickard. President Richard Nixon was critical of PBS and its content. Republican administrations that followed shared at least some of Nixon's ire, seeking to cut funding, claiming public broadcasts held a liberal bias. "Every democratic country in the world does it though," Pickard said of funding public media. However, the United States lags behind other countries in its financial support. According to Pickard, the United States spends about $1.50 per person on public media funding. Great Britain spends more than $100 per person. "We've always impoverished our public media system in the United States compared to other media systems in the world," Pickard said. The funding model is designed, in part, to keep publicly-funded media organizations independent from government influence. It has also made organizations vulnerable. "The system was already vulnerable," Pickard said. "We're already a global outlier compared to how public media systems are funded around the world. In many ways, [President Donald] Trump is exploiting an already vulnerable system." Pickard worries that the further degradation of the news media ecosystem will ultimately be a major blow to U.S. democracy. "We have these natural experiments on what happens when a local community loses news institutions," he said. "People are less likely to vote. They're less physically engaged. They're less politically knowledgeable. There are higher levels of extremism and higher levels of corruption." Pickard cited studies by the Democracy Fund, a nonprofit foundation with the mission of supporting democracy. Senior director Joshua Stearns penned a compilation of more than 50 studies that indicate journalism, especially local coverage, increases engagement with policy. "When people lose local media, they are no longer well informed," Pickard said. "That's a critical area alongside losing emergency alert systems. We have these news deserts that are rapidly expanding all across the country. In many cases, public media are the last institutions standing that could provide some level of news and information."
UPI
26 minutes ago
- UPI
The Jeffrey Epstein saga: a new national security threat?
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman speaks during a news conference about the arrest of American financier Jeffrey Epstein in New York on July 8, 2019, on sex trafficking charges, File photo by Jason Szenes July 30 (UPI) -- The sordid saga of the long dead and convicted predator Jeffrey Epstein not only poses a threat to Donald Trump's presidency, but it also conceivably threatens the credibility of the U.S. political system. Yet, an even more sinister and potentially dangerous threat lurks for the United States and its friends. The two threats are linked, ironically, by Epstein's ghost. Trump's MAGA base is furious that the promised Epstein files have not been released. What's worse is that that Attorney General Pam Bondi apparently informed Trump his name was in the file -- high-test fuel for that blaze. And, now, possibly to deflect attention, Trump and his director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, have accused former President Barack Obama of treason by interfering in the 2016 election with Russian help. In a nation as politically divided as America, any spark could ignite a political firestorm. Beijing, Moscow and others with malicious intent are intensely watching this saga. One conclusion must be that even greater opportunities exist today to interfere in United States and Western politics, not just exploiting this debacle. More importantly, creating new crises that manipulate and fracture political and social cohesion is a formidable danger. The U.K.'s Brexit is an example of manipulation. In the effort to withdraw from the European Union -- the Leave campaign -- former Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his key adviser, Dominic Cummings determined that 1 million or so Britons lacked party affiliation. Then, using social media, this group was targeted with Leave propaganda generated by Cummings. That swung the vote to leave. Cummings was not alone. Substantial evidence exists that Moscow helped influence Brexit and the Leave campaign to weaken the Atlantic Alliance. And Moscow also interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections. Consider the infamous Steele Dossier. Among the allegations, the dossier accused Trump of lewd sexual behavior in Moscow. Suspend reality and imagine Vladimir Putin intervened to help elect Hillary Clinton as president in 2016. Following Cummings' lead, Russian trolls would have filled the Internet with deep-fake photos and invented stories exaggerating or inventing Trump's misconduct. One wonders who might have been elected 45th president. China and Moscow have significant interests in manipulating and fracturing American and Western cohesion. Putin is focused on winning in Ukraine, minimizing sanctions, and in the process, weakening Western solidarity. China is keen on reducing American economic and political influence, as well as annexing Taiwan. It would be negligent to not assume China and Russia are identifying critical weaknesses and potential future fracture points in the United States and elsewhere. In that event where might they focus? National political systems, given the Epstein debacle and national infrastructures, are the two most obvious candidates. Regarding the United States, the Constitution and its system of government based on checks and balances and a division of power among three co-equal branches are the best targets. A super-majority of Americans is highly distrustful and disdainful of government. Exploiting this distrust would not be difficult using the ubiquity of social media and the propensity of Americans to embrace conspiracy theories. Epstein and the Steele Dossier are two examples of how possible future fractures can be invented to sow political, social and economic disruption. The difference is that these effects could be even more destructive. Regarding infrastructure, Israeli and Ukrainian infiltration of two societies with seeming control of their borders and people to launch surprise attacks deep into Iran and Russia underscores how potentially vulnerable military bases and installations are to drones. And even more susceptible to drone attacks are electric generation and power grids, which could cause nationwide disruption. Kinetic attacks on military and civilian infrastructure are fraught with risk. But perceived threats are not. The strategy would be to use a variant of Orson Welles' provocation of massive public and psychological panic in his radio broadcast of War of the Worlds in 1938. Consider future Wellesian scenarios on steroids that threaten catastrophic events or apply fake news reports of spreading epidemics or environmental, financial and other disasters to induce fear and disruption. Concocting new and credible conspiracy theories would be part of this disruptive strategy. None of this is new. The USSR used the Comintern, Cominform and KGB to misinform, disinform, disrupt and provoke. The United States and the U.K. employed similar techniques principally against the Nazis in World War II. However, today is different because social and other media can turn these activities into political weapons of mass disruption. The United States will survive Epstein. Against determined adversaries who intend to create and exploit new political fractures, are the United States and the West ready? That answer is sadly no. Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist, senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council, chairman of a private company and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with Field Marshal The Lord David Richards, former U.K. chief of defense and due out next year, is Who Thinks Best Wins: Preventing Strategic Catastrophe. The writer can be reached on X @harlankullman.
San Francisco Chronicle
26 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Texas Republicans propose new US House map with more winnable GOP seats
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a new congressional map that creates five additional GOP-leaning districts, bolstering their chances of maintaining control as they brace for a challenging midterm election. The redrawn map comes during a special legislative session called by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, as President Donald Trump urges Texas Republicans to reshape districts in the party's favor. Republicans hope the new Texas map will strengthen their chances of holding the U.S. House in 2026, and Trump officials have signaled their efforts may expand beyond the state, with similar pushes now underway in Missouri. Republicans in Texas currently hold 25 of the state's 38 seats, and the new map ups the total they could win to 30. All of those new 30 seats were won by Trump in November by at least 10 percentage points, leading to conservative optimism they can hold them even in what's likely to be a tough midterm environment for the party. The new seats come from making two Rio Grande Valley seats that have been narrowly won by Democrats recently slightly more Republican, collapsing two seats held by Democrats Lloyd Doggett and Greg Casar in the Austin and San Antonio area into a single liberal district and turning two Democratic-held seats in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area into GOP-majority ones. Rep. Greg Casar, one of the Democrats who could face a more difficult reelection under the new map, called the proposed changes 'illegal voter suppression,' pointing to the merging of his district with another Democratic-held seat.
