All’s quiet on the ethical journalism front at the Las Vegas Sun
All's quiet on the journalism front over at the Las Vegas Sun for revising headlines that originally appeared to favor Sharron Angle, but now show up on line to benefit Harry Reid.
In particular, the ever-verbose Jon Ralston ain't got nuthin' to say about this practice.
Let's walk through history as revised by the Sun.
On Sunday, Oct. 17, editor, owner and Reid financial supporter (though you wouldn't know that by reading the Sun) Brian Greenspun wrote on the front page this:
"Too much written has been written about Thursday’s Sen. Harry Reid-Sharron Angle debate. As best I can tell, it has come down to this: Reid didn’t lose because he appeared more substantive than his opponent, and Angle didn’t lose because she appeared somewhat stable.
"Some watchers picked 'certain' winners, though, and that is where I need to take issue."
That bit of wisdom (or was it an admonition to his writers?) appeared under the headline "For all he's done for Nevadans, Reid is obvious Senate choice."
Subsequently, two headlines on Jon Ralston's columns were changed. They now fall better in line with the boss' view of things.
On the same day as the above Greenspun column, Ralston wrote a column originally published with the headline: "Jon Ralston is aghast, still, at Reid's inability to control debate."
But that was changed online to: "Will Angle win by revising history, slandering Reid?".
That's quite a noticeable change in focus. But it wasn't the worst example.
The day after the debate, Ralston wrote a column originally published with the headline: "Reid lost the debate to Angle".
Keeping in mind the boss' view that he takes issue with anyone who picked a debate winner, that has now been changed to: "Thoughts on the Reid-Angle debate".
Pretty ugly stuff from a journalism standpoint. How long has this been going on, and what other content has been revised, not to correct a factual issue, but to shade things from one issue to another, one candidate to another?
