Interesting take from a fellow “physician scientist” entrepreneur who seems to know NOTHING about evidence based medicine and made his billions off of a post-doctoral researcher’s discovery. Bobby is our worst nightmare for HHS. #NotThatSmart
How are people not understanding that the views on Twitter are fake? 35M views with only 40K likes? That’s not how the algorithm works. You need a much higher ratio of likes to views, especially early, to get a viral post. How these idiots are in positions of influence & power is beyond me.
I, too, have Americans’ best interests at heart. I am, however, woefully ignorant about most things and wrong about quite a few more. Still, it’s good to know that, given that first sentiment, I am qualified to head up any federal agency of my choice.
Again, it is *bleakly* comic that Dr. Soon-Shiong is trading on his implicit authority as a physician concerned about the "cause of cancer" to argue for the confirmation of someone who is *actively* suing those who make the vaccine that protects against a big cause of cancer.
They claim something or someone in maga world is really popular & has support entirely based on views, likes, shares, and tv ratings. I listen in on right wing radio in my car. It’s new in that they’re being so explicit & an outrageously faulty measure.
Based on *just* my experience being married to an actual cancer researcher, I can tell you that the surest sign someone has no idea what they’re fucking talking about is when they use the word “toxins” when discussing cancer.
Equating a high number of views on X with support of the American people is fucking bonkers and an indication that nothing this person says has any value.
Being well meaning is not a qualification for anything but especially not to lead an important government agency focused on our health. Lives are literally at stake.
Perhaps he can do something to stop American food producers from putting unknown substances into their food. The public haven’t a clue as to the effects of ‘E103’ or ‘L68’. You even allow 5 rodent tails into muesli, whereas it’s only 2 in the UK!
What in the fuck is that take from him that 35 million (supposed, not necessarily individual) views on his Tweet indicate a “groundswell” of support for Kennedy? Literally all 35 million of those views could be from people thinking “man, this Soon-Shiong guy is an absolute idiot to propose this”
@espiers.bsky.social said NYT tried to get her to change her actual opinion so she chose not to publish, which is weird to me but not as bad as this for sure
I've been over-edited and had to fight back to preserve my own voice and values again and again by the big US publications, which is why I no longer bother with them. But with this one I wonder how much the owner influenced the outcome. Which would be wildly amoral.....
I stopped reading the NY Times because they (to attract attention) concoct headlines that invert the point of someone’s writing. Such clickbait mis-informs readers who only look at the headline. I don’t know if NY Times edits the writing to change the meaning, as happened to you. This is terrible.
This is straight-up deception by LA Times.
I've heard that politicians are instructed to repeat one or two main points as their response to every question in interviews, to make sure these points survive the edit. Sad that LA Times submissions apparently need that strategy, too.
Oh, they one-side plenty. Of their coverage of transgender issues, I think less than 20% actually or talk to an actual trans person, and they universally cast them as either a victim of gender-affirming care, or as an "activist." While sanitizing the credentials of bigots pushing a narrative.
Just tried to call to cancel (so I could tell them why) and got a recording saying they were dealing with a “disaster” and to try my call again later. Does the disaster have a name that rhymes with “Schmatrick”?
I dropped them a while back… It took 3-5 phone calls over several months.
When they tell you they've canceled your service, be certain to confirm they don't "accidentally" keep charging you.
I’m wondering if there’s a legal case here. This impacts on your reputation. Anyone reading that will conclude that you think RFK Jr is competent and therefore your opinion must never be listened to. Financially ruinous if you write opinion for a living.
"Kalmus discusses an op-ed he recently published in The New York Times about the decision, which he says was toned down by the paper’s editors when he attempted to explain...fossil fuel companies’ investment in climate change denial and normalization."
Soon-Shiong is like Bezos---he's a billionaire who bought a legacy media outlet as a prestige play & left it alone for awhile, only to panic when he realized Trump's rage at the outlet could splash onto him. The two papers have followed parallel paths, shedding subscribers as they hew heavily right.
Wow, that's completely different! It's not just a new title and deleted paragraph, it's all over - I'm shocked they felt it appropriate to leave your name as the author. Here are screenshots of a diff showing all the changes:
I copy-pasted every change to a separate document. There are 5504 characters (not including spaces) which were either added or deleted. The published article length was 5591 characters.
The length isn't the problem, it's the complexity of the prose. There are too many changes for tools based on diff(1), designed for working with source code that has consistent line breaks, to figure out where the previous text resumes.
That's right, yes. There is no legal remedy for it. His best remedy (and really, only) is what he's doing. Putting them on blast. Warning other writers away from them. Waning readers.
I feel like if I said "mass murder is not good" and it was edited to say 'mass murder is... good' then I'd have a claim of some kind but I'm not lawyer
Yes but this is an op-ed. It would be normal for news editors to change headlines and wording is stories published. But to alter an opinion piece? It's supposed to be reflective of the authors views, this editing seems to change those almost entirely.
Very nice, tight...no, they don't have a right to butcher it till it's unrecognizable. If they have a different view they wish to press, reject yours, then have someone on staff produce it for the boss.
I'm so sorry this happened to you(r work). I hope someone will be able to at least attach a Community Note to the CEO's tweet of the link to your (mutilated) article
Welp, LA Times is ultra tainted shit. Easy block. Sorry this happened to you man. I used to be a boss in music promotion. If any of my forner editors misrepresented my writers like this, they'd be getting fired. News isn't supposed to be PR ffs
So they deleted your last two sentences? I like your OP-ED. The paper is not to be trusted any longer. Billionaires shouldn't be allowed to operate newspapers. Of course that'll never happen so we all are realizing that we must follow Substack writers who publish truths.
I’m no expert but I assume once an oped is submitted, it’s no longer the property of the writer. The reason to edit so close to publication is because it would be too late to change or stop it so it goes right to print.
Exactly. I would think if they ask an expert to share his opinion for publication but then edit it and twist it to intentionally mislead, that would be grounds for legal action. For one thing, it undermines the public's perception of the author's expertise. But IANAL
Editors have final say on copy and headline, that's part of the purchase agreement.
I'm not arguing it's *right*, it's obviously insanely shitty and more writers should be aware of LAT's abuse of this practice, but it's the same way that documentarians can selectively edit interviews.
Isn't there some kind of right of refusal though? As an absurd example, can the editor re-title the article to "Here is a list of all the crimes I, the author, have committed" and then implicate you in a bunch of stuff?
They can't change the actual meaning of the piece though. There's a limit. And if they didn't like the message - the shouldn't have accepted the opinion piece in he first place.
If an editor completely changes the meaning of a freelance piece, publishes it, and that piece damages the writer - and does so with an express intent to be contrary to the writer's obvious meaning - there may be legal cause.
…They can't publish commentary in someone's name, counter to a position that person holds, that will damage their professional reputation, and do so knowingly and willingly.
I'm not arguing with anyone, the poster immediately above me who I replied to asked "how is it legal" and I answered them, then made clear that this was not a defense of the practice (since a defense of the practice *would* have been an argument)
Yep, Soon-shiong previously mostly let the newsroom run itself. He got more brazen during the election with interference in the editorial pages, and now he's clearly stepping it up further.
The only guardrails left are the subscriber pool abandoning the paper.
I hope that you sue the @latimes.com as they definitely defamed you for making it appear that you support RFK Jr. Clear that owner of Times changed your article as he wants HHS to approve his medical technology.
You just don't GET to see the NYT pull this shit. At least not usually. For an example of the NYT pulling pretty much EXACTLY this shit go look at @pkrugman.bsky.social's TL for his resignation essay.
Will the "governing powers that be" who hold the keys to the store room in the medical facility... please check for missing drugs. Seems this doc might be on something....
“RFK Jr’s wife is kind of hot. I mean, she needs to lay off the botox but you gotta have rizz to pull in that kind of tail. RFK Jr has my full and complete endorsement”
Comments
Then, take away access to real information…
That's... WHAT?
..
Certificates from cereal packets aren't real.
Some TOPICS raised by RFK are good to discuss. The problem is his nostrums.
I've heard that politicians are instructed to repeat one or two main points as their response to every question in interviews, to make sure these points survive the edit. Sad that LA Times submissions apparently need that strategy, too.
It's so servile it's kind of gross
A good way to describe the trumpists. Servile
When they tell you they've canceled your service, be certain to confirm they don't "accidentally" keep charging you.
"Kalmus discusses an op-ed he recently published in The New York Times about the decision, which he says was toned down by the paper’s editors when he attempted to explain...fossil fuel companies’ investment in climate change denial and normalization."
I am sorry to see what happened to your op-Ed
I had an LAT sub a couple years ago
And the nytimes has lost its way just as badly as LAT
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mNFm4sL4DiGn06vykaH6vejIUjHcALep/view?usp=drivesdk
https://www.randomlengthsnews.com/archives/2024/10/25/craven-hypocritical-sexist-racist/59380
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-31/whatsapp-says-paragon-spyware-used-to-try-hacking-journalists
Why do we treat them so well when we despise the others??
https://text-compare.com/
(Because the first amendment must protect the shitty as well as the good?)
Powered by @skywriter.blue
I'm not arguing it's *right*, it's obviously insanely shitty and more writers should be aware of LAT's abuse of this practice, but it's the same way that documentarians can selectively edit interviews.
This is not selective editing for space, for tone, or grammar...this is a deliberate misrepresentation
If an editor completely changes the meaning of a freelance piece, publishes it, and that piece damages the writer - and does so with an express intent to be contrary to the writer's obvious meaning - there may be legal cause.
So, yes - they can edit. BUT…
That's clear libel.
Who are you arguing with?
The only guardrails left are the subscriber pool abandoning the paper.
And thanks to you for pursuing it.
https://bsky.app/profile/ericreinhart.bsky.social/post/3lh53f2lh522f
Appreciate your clarification, Eric, and I'm so goddamned sorry to read how awful this has become.
— Patrick Soon-Shiong