LETTERS: Public wants to know who owns paper
Michael Reed, the CEO of New Media Investment Corp., which recently sold the Review-Journal, said the public didn't care who the buyer was and that reporters pushed the story to disclose the new owner with the intention of creating controversy ("We will continue to fight for your trust every day," Sunday Review-Journal). Mr. Reed, the public does care who owns the Review-Journal. How insulting to its readers to suggest otherwise.
What is harmful is this attitude of assuming anything can be done because no one is watching. I will be watching closely, and I expect R-J reporters to do so as well. I thank them for their diligence in reporting this story.
Debbie Brazeau
Henderson
Future coverage
Congratulations to Review-Journal reporters and staff for their excellent and timely coverage of the sale of the newspaper and of their new owners, the Adelson family. In my opinion, their efforts are the only reason we now know who the owners are.
Why this started as a clandestine purchase is a critical issue. As new information becomes available regarding higher management's involvement in newsroom assignments on judicial matters in Las Vegas, readers need to ask if this is a sign of what is to come. Contrary to what was said by Michael Reed, CEO of previous owner New Media Investment Corp., the public does care about who bought their local newspaper.
Sheldon Adelson said he bought the paper as a financial investment. That begs the question of why he paid $38 million more for just the Nevada news properties than the previous owner paid for a national chain of eight newspapers. Everyone knows Mr. Adelson is an astute businessman. That doesn't sound like a sound financial decision to me. However, if money is less important than influence, it might make sense to a billionaire.
If reporters who worked on exposing this story continue to work at the paper, and if the R-J's libertarian/conservative views on the editorial page don't become more extreme, perhaps readers will be able to survive a basically one-newspaper town. I am, perhaps naively, hopeful but not optimistic.
Jo Ann Malkin
Las Vegas
Paper on probation
It took a lot of nerve to write the articles over the past week about the new ownership of the Review-Journal. Thank you, because I enjoy reading the paper every morning.
When I heard that Sheldon Adelson was the new owner of the R-J, my first instinct was to immediately cancel the paper. As John L. Smith pointed out in his Sunday column, Mr. Adelson has a habit of suing people who don't agree with him ("Adelson has chance to prove doubters wrong").
In my opinion, Mr. Adelson has no other reason to buy your paper other than to use it for his own agenda. He certainly isn't going to like it if the staff refuses. This could be a life-changing decision for the R-J reporters covering this story. My thoughts are with you all.
Unfortunately, the Review-Journal is on probation in my mind. I want to continue being a loyal reader, but only time will tell.
Pam Ford
Henderson
GOP on gun rights
There's been nothing in any of the Republican debates about the Democrats' constant efforts to strip the American people of their right to self-defense. When is the Republican Party going to include gun rights in its debate platform? The issue breaks across party lines, and highlighting it is the only way the GOP is going to win the election.
A record amount of firearms have been sold since President Barack Obama took office. The issue is white hot. It made millions of voters tune in and stay home during the last two presidential elections, when the Republican Party ran two candidates — John McCain and Mitt Romney — who are weak on gun rights.
The NRA is more than 5 million members strong, and there are many other independent shooting organizations and sportsmen clubs across the U.S. They all vote every time the Republican Party gives them a candidate who's pro-gun rights. What is the GOP waiting for?
John Duck
Las Vegas
