LETTERS: Article on judicial scrutiny was deceptive

A front-page article began with this eye-catching contention: "Just over a month before Sheldon Adelson's family was revealed as the new owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, three reporters at the newspaper received an unusual assignment passed down from the newspaper's corporate management: Drop everything and spend two weeks monitoring all activity of three Clark County judges." One of the judges was Elizabeth Gonzalez, whom the article noted was presiding over a wrongful termination lawsuit against Mr. Adelson and Las Vegas Sands Corp. ("Lawsuit judge target of scrutiny," Dec. 17 Review-Journal.)

The takeaway of these assertions by a reasonable reader is the implication that Mr. Adelson had something to do with initiating the scrutiny of Judge Gonzalez. However, it wasn't until the 13th paragraph, on an inside page, that the reader learned there was no evidence that Mr. Adelson had any role in the monitoring. The Review-Journal's previous owner (and current manager) selected only the topic of the assignment, not the judges or subject of the assignment. The publisher and other R-J executives said the parent company did not specify Judge Gonzalez as one of the three subjects and said she was selected at the R-J.

Regarding Judge Gonzalez being a target of scrutiny, the article reveals that the scrutiny was limited to what a reporter could observe in open court. Pretty tame stuff. I had always thought that news articles were written in an inverted pyramid style, with the most important and basic supporting facts at the beginning. Here, the most important facts were that the writers had nothing linking Mr. Adelson to this scrutiny.

Of course, if the article had started off that way, would it have ever been published?

Frederick H. Kraus

Las Vegas

— The writer was an attorney for Las Vegas Sands Corp. from March 2004 to June 2013.

Readers care

Regarding the sale of the Review-Journal, Sheldon Adelson wields his wealth against anyone who opposes him. He uses his money and lawyers to get what he wants, instead of what is good for the community.

I am watching, and I will continue to watch to see if the reporters who wrote the article that revealed the Review-Journal's new owners continue to have jobs at this newspaper ("Adelson's son-in-law led purchase," Dec. 17 Review-Journal). I will especially watch to see if John L. Smith continues his commentary in the Nevada section.

Michael Reed, the CEO of previous R-J owner New Media Investment Corp., said the public doesn't care about who owns the R-J. Mr. Reed needs to know that there is a large and predominantly silent portion of the public that does indeed care who owns the media.

Susan Marsh

North Las Vegas

Sarcasm on security

Michael Kreps' letter noted that terrorists have attempted to use refugees as a veil to conduct their heinous actions ("Refugee crisis," Friday Review-Journal). Mr. Kreps suggests the vetting process must be even more grueling, as it's the only way to ensure our safety.

I must question, however, if such measures go far enough. While there's widespread concern that opening doors to refugees will let terrorists slip in, what about the more than 4 million births in the U.S. since 2013? Certainly most of these infants — like most of the Syrian refugees — want nothing but to exist in peace, but how do we really know that? Without a strenuous, years-long vetting process, how can we be sure some won't become violent zealots? After all, San Bernardino attacker Syed Farook was born in America.

Surely if we want to protect ourselves, we must immediately call upon our elected officials to close not only the borders, but the maternity wings of all hospitals in the country. We should not only follow Donald Trump's suggestion of surveilling mosques, but pre-schools, kindergartens and daycare centers as well. Can we, as a nation, afford not to?

And shouldn't there be similar scrutiny on Christians? Naturally, the overwhelming majority of Christians want nothing but to live their lives (again, like Syrian refugees), but there are radical elements who call for violence. Can we, as a nation, risk that? And what about doctors? Some, I assume, are good people, but there are those who abuse their licenses or commit malpractice. Why has Gov. Brian Sandoval not called for a ban on the settlement of any physicians in Nevada in the same way he's called for a halt on Syrian refugees?

Are we really going to let trivial things such as courage, decency and ethics get in the way of our security? And while we're at it, we might want to get rid of that "home of the brave" line in the national anthem. People might get the wrong impression of us.

Gordon Brown

Las Vegas