Where I stand -- Brian Greenspun: Setting the record straight, just like Dad would have

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

Today is Father's Day. It is the one day of the year when sons and daughters are supposed to do what Dad says and allow Dad to do what he wants. Of course, some of us -- the people in society known as Dad -- believe that should be the case 365 days a year. But, since we are smart enough to know our place in the scheme of things, one day will do just fine.

So, today I'd like to do something nice for my father. Even though he died almost nine years ago --that, in itself, is hard to believe -- there isn't a day that goes by that I don't think about him. Not just as a father but as a force for good in this community. I am always asking myself, "What would Hank do?"

That's the question I asked last week when I read some blather written by the editor of the Review-Journal in some half-witted attempt to sell Las Vegans on the idea that the R-J gives a damn about Las Vegas or anything other than the bottom line. The answer was simple.

Hank would set the record straight and he would do it in a way that would leave little question in the readers' minds about what he was trying to say. As much as I would like to do it his way, I'm not that good. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, especially on a day when we honor our fathers.

To meet that challenge, I must ask another question: How much protesting by a lady did William Shakespeare have in mind before it turns to whining?

However much that is, the Review-Journal managed to do more than enough in a simpering, whiny little piece of self-indulgence in the form of a Sunday column titled, "Embracing Principles over Cronyism," which was written, I assume, by editor Tom Mitchell because the editor's note at the bottom told the readers that he occasionally writes about the newspaper's "news and editorial functions." Well, I read what he wrote and it sounded like some other function that must not be further described in a family newspaper.

My advisers at the Sun tell me not to respond to what I think was a personal attack on my family's newspaper. I say "think" because even though I've read it a couple of times, I still can't tell what Mitchell was talking about. Anyway, the professionals at our paper say to leave him alone and let him stew in his own shame that his newspaper was beaten by the Sun, once again, on what the R-J proudly claims as its own story.

On that there is no doubt. The R-J always takes great pride in stories that tear down politicians and rip at the democratic fabric of a political process that depends on human beings. It never has understood the difference between mistakes in judgment or simple bonehead moves and other, more malicious actions that are reserved for a small minority of people in elected office who shouldn't be there.

That's why Las Vegans are fortunate to have another voice. That's why the Las Vegas Sun exists as an independently owned, family-operated newspaper -- independent editorially from the R-J, and that's the way it will be for at least the next 42 years.

The Sun did not run the initial story about University Regent cum Congressional candidate, Shelley Berkley, because we didn't have the transcripts in which she purportedly described her view of the political process in Clark County. It was a view, I might add, that many members of the public privately express in their most cynical moments. It was also a view that is untrue and unworthy of our democracy and one for which Shelly apologized -- in the Las Vegas Sun.

That, I suppose, is what Mitchell is so upset about. You see, for a long time the Review-Journal has viewed itself as the only newspaper in town or, at least, the only one to which the public should pay attention. It is based upon a level of arrogance that comes with having the larger circulation for too long.

The problem is that the reading and thinking public refuses to abandon the Sun because it knows the value of a second opinion, especially one that cares about the community it serves and bases that care in reason and responsibility. Why, we even have the temerity to talk about ends not justifying the means, which drives the R-J up a wall.

You see, down the street they are caught up in the new style of "gotcha" journalism that says get a story even if you have to trample the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and every other amendment in the Bill of Rights to do it. Couple that with the other paper's long-held belief that any government is too much, any tax is too high and any union is too wrong and you have the makings of a first-class reactionary newspaper dedicated to tearing down all the good that this community has built.

It is not enough for the paper down the street to encourage Las Vegans to build upon the solid foundation on which our city stands. And it is not enough that Las Vegas is the envy of the modern world. The truth is that what Las Vegans have has happened in spite of the Review-Journal's efforts to stop this city at every turn and the little minds down the street just can't stand the thought of it. So, they are lashing out.

I, frankly, am flattered that the other paper feels obligated to blame the Las Vegas Sun for helping to guide the growth of Las Vegas for the past half century. They certainly played no positive part in making our city the fastest-growing community in the nation. But they do know about negatives.

There is something wrong with a newspaper, for example, which operates under the First Amendment to the Constitution, that doesn't have the sensitivity to understand that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the individuals in our society, especially those who lack the voice, the power or the money to protect themselves.

To advocate trampling upon those valued rights and traditions is the height of arrogance and shows that newspaper for what it is -- self-centered, uncaring and too self-absorbed to understand that real people are affected by what it does and what it writes.

So, I've decided not to take the advice of my editors. On this Father's Day I will embark upon a path that is certain to evoke some sniveling response from down the street. For what we do at the Sun is too important to allow some small-minded editor to try to marginalize us and everyone else who believes that most people are good and try to do the right thing.

We won't shrink from your whiny little attacks, Mr. Mitchell. We can't stop being a newspaper that cares more about the community we serve than the bottom line because that's the way we grew up. And, while we take what we do very seriously, we will never take ourselves so seriously that we will allow arrogance to dictate our editorial policy, no matter how well that method has seemed to work for you.

You know, on second thought maybe I shouldn't say what's on my mind. Maybe, there's a smarter way. Instead, I'll make an offer to the R-J's readers that they shouldn't refuse. Subscribe to a good newspaper for a change and get the other, more responsible side of the story. Yes, that's what I'll do. It will be good for everybody. And if enough people decide to read the Sun, it could even be good for the other paper.

As our circulation grows so should their arrogance diminish. Then, maybe, our elected officials and those thinking about offering themselves up for public service will take the chance on being themselves, making mistakes and doing what is right for our community. More people will offer themselves for public service and better decisions will follow. And if that happens, the Review-Journal can take credit for some of the good and the good people that make Las Vegas such a great place to live. I know that would confuse them a bit but, at least, they'd quit all that whining.

Now there's a Father's Day gift worth dreaming about.

To my dad and all the good dads out there -- even the whiners -- Happy Father's Day.

archive