While painful, my decision to unsubscribe from the LA Times and the Washington Post was a necessary action in support of independent journalism.
By Karin Klein
I have spent literally half of my life — 35 years — working for the Los Angeles Times (LAT), the last 22 years as an editorial writer covering education, environment, medicine and science. My tenure as a subscriber goes back to 1983.
That’s right. I’ve been an LAT subscriber for 41 years.
So when I quit both my job and canceled my subscription in October, it tore at me, even though I did it without hesitation. (You can read my rationale for quitting the paper here.)
I imagine that some of my friends and colleagues at the paper are irked by my public decision to cancel my subscription.
In our employee Facebook group and in the #whyisubscribe thread on X, as well as in countless opinion pieces, I read over and over that the respective owners of the Times and Post won’t care and I’m only hurting journalists and journalism.
In the short term, they might be right that the cascade of cancellations will harm their jobs and weaken the papers. While painful, I see unsubscribing as striking a blow for journalism – and ultimately for journalists.
While painful, I see unsubscribing as striking a blow for journalism.
See also Tanzina Vega’s essay on the inadequacy of #WhyISubscribe.
My decision to leave the paper was for me. I personally felt, after 48 years of following the rules of journalism ethics, that I could not spend the last years of my career with my name attached to the organization.
My decision to cancel was for journalism. Readers have to make clear to owners what they will and will not stand for. Nothing is going to nudge owners or journalism toward a better future if I and others who feel the same way don’t take meaningful action.
My soon-to-be-former colleagues in the newsroom might be right in the short term. A cascade of cancellations might (or might not) harm their jobs and weaken the papers.
But if I ignore my belief that bad action by newspaper owners calls for a consumer response, I give in to a bigger harm: journalists held hostage as owners do what they want and subscribers forever pay ransom in the form of renewed subscriptions.
If I fail to act, I accept helplessness. I am not that sort of person.
Readers have to make clear to owners what they will and will not stand for.
If owners such as Patrick Soon-Shiong see no consequences for their actions, they will never learn, and my own guess is that things will worsen. There would be nothing to keep them in check.
Write a letter to the editor, people suggest. Yes, as someone who has worked in letters, I can tell you exactly how much those frighten owners.
Actions speak louder than letters. I’m not buying the assertion that owners won’t care about losing 5% to perhaps 15% of their paid circulation.
Losing subscribers isn’t just a loss of money; it’s a public embarrassment, especially to a man like Soon-Shiong, who overpaid for the Times in part to take a noble role as a civic leader.
Maybe I’m wrong and he really doesn’t care about the lost revenue and reputation, in which case he’s likely to repeat craven mistakes that I cannot support.
Losing subscribers isn’t just a loss of money; it’s a public embarrassment.
Some journalists suggest canceling Amazon Prime instead of the Post, which also had a billionaire owner bury a presidential endorsement at the last minute. I’ve been particularly bothered to see this suggestion. It strikes me as stemming from privilege. Journalism is an important bulwark against despotism, but that doesn’t make it any more OK for blameless warehouse workers and drivers to lose their jobs.
The truth is, a boycott-type movement like the current wave of cancellations is always going to hurt some innocent people — though I haven’t tried to get others to make the same decision I did. This sort of action is undertaken when large numbers of people feel that the need for change is greater than the possibility of short-term collateral damage, and on this, people legitimately disagree about which cause is more important and how bad the damage will be.
This sort of action is undertaken when large numbers of people feel that the need for change is greater than the possibility of short-term collateral damage.
Those of us who resigned — I and editorials editor Mariel Garza and Pulitzer Prize winner Robert Greene — obviously felt that the moral issue at hand was bigger than our jobs.
Maybe the situation is not so different for appalled subscribers.
Make no mistake, I will continue to support journalists and plan to spend more money to do so by donating and subscribing to well-run, ethical news organizations that create a strong future for the business of journalism. Those might include now-problematic owners who learn from their mistakes and go on to build trust with their readers; billionaire-owned press that are thriving, doing excellent journalism – and endorsing – such as the Boston Globe; and nonprofits such as CalMatters and a new L.A.-based newsroom for which Merida and other respected figures are building financial support.
We get the newspaper that we deserve.
Contrary to the prevailing theme of “keep your subscription, save a journalist,” the better statement in my eyes is “We get the newspaper that we deserve.”
If we don’t support strong news outlets, we lose them. If we don’t withdraw our support from a newspaper that veers too far from its highest values, we can’t expect great things to happen.
Karin Klein is author of the new HarperCollins book “Rethinking College: A Guide to Thriving Without a Degree.” She is a former editor for The Grade and has given notice to the Los Angeles Times that she no longer will write editorials for the paper. You can follow her on X at @kklein100.
Previously from The Grade
The failure of #WhyISubscribe
Holding solutions journalism accountable
Media accountability for school closings
