It's the conflict, stupid.

Attention, boys and girls: The Charter School of Real Journalism is now in session, and two definitions are very important today in order to understand the latest Las Vegas Sun ethics brouhaha.

1) "Quibble": To evade the truth of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections.

2) "Quibbler": A person who finds fault or criticizes for petty reasons. For related phrases to use in a sentence, see, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks," and, "Wake up and smell the coffee." For a picture, see Jon Ralston.

For those who don't know, Ralston is what you might call the "franchise player" at the Sun. He used to work for me. Then he went independent with his inside baseball political analysis in Nevada and, in the end, threw in with the Sun. Money was exchanged, I am told.

When he worked for me he was a fierce defender of the truth, no matter who it stung. Now ... well, all I can tell you is that he's currently out shaving the truth on an important issue by soft-peddling a clear and egregious breach of journalistic ethics by the Sun.

Here are the facts: For months people at the Sun wrote news stories, columns and editorials on a ballot question called TASC -- the Tax and Spending Control initiative. The measure limits annual government budget increases to the rate of population growth and inflation combined. It will be one of the big issues in November's general election.

What the Sun didn't tell its readers is that all the while the Sun produced purportedly objective stories and honest commentary on TASC, the Sun's owner and editor, Brian Greenspun, also wrote big checks to the political group trying to kill TASC. Now, that objectivity and honesty is rightfully in question.

How much did he give? Well, it wasn't chicken feed. The Sun editor contributed about 10 percent of the total raised so far to fight TASC, or $100,000.

And what does Jon Ralston have to say about this development in one of the hottest statewide issues this election cycle? In his paid e-mail blurb, he briefly wrote about the Greenspun donation, but mysteriously failed to mention the conflict it posed for the Sun. After I hammered home the point of this conflict on Sunday, Jon dealt with the issue -- but in an excusing way. In fact, his primary criticism focused on the ancillary and petty point of arguing that the Review-Journal overreached in its characterization of the Sun editor's donation.

For example, I used the word "bankrolling" to describe the Sun's involvement. Jon thought I should have called it a "contribution."

That's a quibble fit for an Iraqi courtroom.

First, $100,000 is a lot of money in my book. Any Southern Nevada politician would consider this sum a major contribution. And, I'll bet most Sun readers would have considered it a hefty bankroll -- if they were given the opportunity to read about it. Second, and more importantly, the outrage is that any money -- even $1! -- was given without revealing the fact to readers. That's just bad journalism.

Then there's one other troubling little fact in this whole ethical breach. According to the disclosure papers filed with the state, the headquarters of the anti-TASC effort is listed as ... drumroll, please ... a Sun-affiliated address.

I almost dumped my Starbucks coffee on my BlackBerry when someone forwarded me Jon's latest e-mail defense, in which he passed off that stunning fact as merely "unfortunate."

Unfortunate?

No, unfortunate would be forgetting to pack toothpaste on an overnight trip. What the Sun did ethically here is more like forgetting to pack and wear pants and underwear.

No reconfiguration of deck chairs changes the name of this ship. The "Titanic" Sun has a gaping ethical hole on its bow. Integrity calls for someone over there to stop cursing the guy pointing at the hole, and start questioning the captain who knowingly steered into the iceberg.

Of course, that would take courage, and that's something in short supply at the Sun these days.

But here's what's really goofy about this latest episode of "Life with Brian": Disclosure is easy. Just because the Sun has varied business interests in Las Vegas doesn't mean it can't disclose its conflicts in relevant news stories, columns and editorials. The Sun simply chose not to do so in this case for reasons it has yet to explain. The worst-case scenario is that the Sun's owner and editor -- with or without knowing help from newsroom underlings -- routinely hides conflicts for reasons that could range from simple financial gain to petty personal, social favors.

Maybe Sun editors will take all this to heart and explain themselves soon. But whatever they do, it really doesn't make much difference at this point. The damage is done. Anytime the Sun writes about TASC, readers rightly will have a seed of doubt about whether they are getting the straight scoop.

At this point, I ought to say that while declaring conflict is easy, one can fail to do so by accident. We at the Review-Journal do our level best to disclose conflicts and appearances of conflict. If we make a mistake and fail to do so, I can promise you it won't take two weeks to correct.

If you are new to Las Vegas, it's also important to let you know that although the Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal each morning, the Review-Journal is wholly separate and independent from the Sun. We just get delivered together. Please, don't mix us up any other way.

I'm not sure there is a current parallel in American journalism for what is going on at the Las Vegas Sun these days. The closest thing, perhaps, is the disaster unfolding at the Santa Barbara News-Press. Wendy McCaw bought the newspaper in 2000 and has since proceeded to mercilessly meddle in the newsroom.

In the current edition of the American Journalism Review, columnist Rem Rieder writes of the McCaw indiscretions:

"McCaw moved to limit coverage of drunk driving charges against Travis Armstrong, the paper's editorial page editor. She reprimanded staffers for publishing the address where actor Rob Lowe planned to build a compound. And she completed the trifecta by naming Armstrong acting publisher. Six editors and a longtime columnist resigned in protest.

"All of which goes to show -- it's not so much the type of ownership, it's who the owners are."

Hmmm. Failing to publish the drunken driving arrest of a writer ... protecting friends ... punishing enemies. Other than the part about editors and columnists quitting out of conscience, the Santa Barbara experience may sound eerily familiar to Sun staff.

Readers, of course, won't have a clue.

Sherman Frederick is publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media. Readers may write him at sfrederick@reviewjournal.com.