COLUMN: Thomas Mitchell

     Every now and then I get a call that goes something like this: "That editorial was completely biased and one-sided. There was no balance whatsoever."
      To which I generally respond: "Thank you. What's your point?"
      The point for us at the Review-Journal should be that sometimes we forget to tell you, the reader, the hows, whys and wherefores of our operations, of which, this editorial page can be among the most contentious and controversial.
      The modern newspaper, as found in most metropolitan areas, is a far cry from its predecessor. Early newspapers made no attempts at objectivity and were blatant vehicles for one political point of view or another.
      That's changed dramatically over the centuries. The news columns of major daily newspapers in this country are intended to be fair, accurate and objective accounts of current events -- without spin, nuance or advocacy of issue or individual.
      But the editorial pages are another matter. There, the nation's newspapers have reserved a forum for advancing causes, for championing candidates and for advocacy in general. An even more recent evolution has been the op-ed page, or opposite editorial, in which the opinions of others are given an airing.
      We at the Review-Journal are proud of our distinctive voice in this community and the stances we've taken, even though we know that some disagree, and a few so vehemently as to cancel their subscriptions in protest.
      We do not take the namby-pamby stance of: Well, some of our friends think this way, but some of our friends think that way, so we'll just leave it to our friends.
      No, we take a stand and argue vociferously.
      We also try to be specific and recommend actions. What can be more hollow than a vague: Something must be done!
      So, where is the Review-Journal coming from? On whose side is it? What ax does it grind?
      According to Review-Journal Publisher Sherman R. Frederick, the chief arbiter of our opinion, this paper's political and editorial philosophy can be boiled down to a four-word Nevada tradition: "Live and let live."
      In other words, the rights and property of the individual are paramount. Government's role is minimal, and everything government does is subject to the informed advice and consent of the people. Free markets will better reflect the will of the people than bureaucratic regulations. Free speech will result in the best ideas winning the day. Majority rules so long as there is constitutional protection against the tyranny of the majority.
      Frankly, that is a position that crosses political party lines and defies being pegged on any one portion of the so-called political spectrum.
      But it is a philosophy we strive to make an underpinning of our editorials -- without fear or favor. We think it is a high-ground we can defend.
      Other newspapers may take up the cudgel of their friends and political allies. But that is a slippery and shifting ground that is full of ulterior motives and hidden agendas.
      Agree or disagree, dear reader, our intent in our unsigned editorials is to provide a consistent and predictable philosophy that addresses your immediate and long-term needs for justice and freedom.
      In a chaotic world of conflicts and startling new developments, that is not easy. After all, our editorials do not come from a monolithic machine but from a collection of individual writers, editors and executives with varied backgrounds and aspirations.
      Most editorials are written by our three-person team - editorial page editor John Kerr and writers Vin Suprynowicz and Rafael Tammariello, all talented writers and logical thinkers.
      We often argue about who should prevail in a clash of individual rights. Take the issue of abortion, a difficult one for advocates of individual rights. Which is superior, the right of a woman to control her body, or of a fetus to life ... and when? We've roundly condemned so-called partial birth abortions, but prior to that?
      We oppose state-sanctioned discrimination against any class or category of people and just as ardently oppose creating special protections and quotas.
      We oppose the state taking the property of one person to give to another, when it is not being used (despite any claims to the contrary) to serve an urgent public need.
      We are strong advocates of open and frugal government.
      We abhor hypocrisy.
      We can't abide people who squander the public's trust.
      We believe that people, left to their own devices, will do what is best for themselves.
      So, rest assured we do not take our role of advocate lightly, nor blithely embrace any party line.
      I hope this offers some insight into the process and gives you a better understanding of our role and intentions.
     
     Thomas Mitchell is editor of the Review-Journal. He writes an occasional column explaining the newspaper's role and functions. He may be contracted at 383-0261 or Thomas_Mitchell@lvrj.com.