LETTERS: UNLV will profit from Clinton speech

To the editor:

For the past few weeks, it seems like every time I turn around, someone is complaining about Hillary Clinton getting $225,000 for speaking at a UNLV Foundation fundraiser. Quit whining. It’s not about how much it costs; it’s about how much the foundation makes.

Mrs. Clinton is the draw. Would the MGM Grand Garden make as much if it had someone other than Floyd Mayweather Jr. as the main attraction on a boxing card?



Conner decision

To the editor:

Convicted murderer Charles Conner had his death sentence and conviction reversed by the Nevada Supreme Court, over a technicality in jury selection (“Murder conviction overturned,” June 27 Review-Journal). The justices admit there was enough evidence to convict Conner in the brutal murder of a 23-year-old military woman stationed at Nellis in 1985. After his arrest in 2007, Conner was willing to admit to all charges to avoid the death penalty.

The family of the victim, hoping for some closure on this brutal crime, may now have to go through another trial and all the appeals that go with it, plus their own heartache. The justices that reversed the conviction should be made to explain to the victim’s family their decision to overturn this conviction on a technicality.



Headline biases

To the editor:

In comparing the headlines of two articles from the July 1 edition of the Review-Journal, print and online, the hysteria is obvious. The immigration article headline in newsprint screams, “Titus blasts leaders in House on immigration,” while the online version is much more newsworthy: “Titus criticizes GOP leadership at Las Vegas immigration event.”

The Supreme Court article in newsprint also screams “Nevada Democrats in Congress blast Supreme Court’s ruling for companies” — “blast” must be the headline writer’s favorite word — while the more reasoned online headline states, “Nevada Democrats criticize Supreme Court decision on birth control.”

The content of both articles in print and online is the same. The only difference is the bias of the headlines. How about being a reporter of news, not a political journal?



Movie-review politics

To the editor:

After being a subscriber to the Review-Journal for over 40 years, I read a movie critique I could not believe. I have never seen an “F” given to any movie, even the worst of the worst, until earlier this month (“Sloppily made ‘America’ full of slogans, devoid of real thought,” July 4 Review-Journal).

If Reuters critic James Rocchi wants to push his agenda, he should get a job on the editorial page. We read movie listings and synopses to get information, not political rhetoric. If he hated the movie, fine, he’s entitled, but he doesn’t have the job of trying to eviscerate a movie just because he disagrees with the theme.

Believe it or not, half of Mr. Rocchi’s readers will enjoy the movie, and they should have the opportunity to judge for themselves. This was very poor reporting. It’s sad that liberals have become so angry and intolerant that they can’t even give an honest movie review without spewing hate and discontent.



Home Front Page Footer Listing