Currently: 65° | Complete forecast | Log in
Let's conduct a poll.
Is the Review-Journal all-but-ignoring (Page 6A today!) the most significant story of caucus season -- the attempt to shut down those casino precincts -- and one with far-reaching implications, one the national media is all over because of :
A. Laziness
B. Incompetence
C. We had first
D. All of the above
Cast your vote -- or provide your own answer -- below.
Mandalay Bay Events Center | 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
Las Vegas Hilton
Hawaiian Tropic Zone | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
Tao | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
Santa Fe Station
LAX Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
Orleans Hotel-Casino
Prive | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Print
E-mail
Share
delicious
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitter
The answer is probably because the caucus affects only the Democratic Party and the R-J normally refuses to give credibility to those damned Democrats.
The obvious answer is (B) INCOMPETENCE
"Provide your own answer". Sherman Frederick hates lawyers, probably because he lacks the education and experience to fully participate in complex legal discussions. Ditto for the rest of the political writing staff and columnists. As a result, it's hard to for the RJ to do a decent job dissecting the pleadings filed in the case, let alone writing about them. So the correct answer is "D", all of the above.
By the way, John Ralston. You did a great public service by posting the Memorandum of Points and Authorities on the Sun's web site yesterday. Now it seems that it's been pushed so far down the internet page that it's gone. Please tell the web master to put it up near the top, and leave it parked there for all to see. Also please post and park the defendants/respondents reply for all to see. The one thing that always irritates me about all newspapers and magazines is that they sound bite a lawsuit's issues, so the average joe never gets to read them directly and perhaps understand them.
The RJ and sometimes the Sun as well, seems to not understand anything that is legal. It is clear that their reporters have no legal understanding whatsoever and neither do their columnists. Of coursre it all starts at the top with their publishers and editors who also do not have the first clue about thee simplest American justice concepts. They do not even know that in this country one is innocent until proven guilty. Thus, when any story involves legal issues, one will see only a cursory review of it in the unaptly named Review Journal. The Journal part however is quite appropriate because the RJ reads as nothing more than the publishers and editors diaries. Stories and fantasies that they believe even if no one else does. The reason that the RJ has no respect as a "newspaper" is that it is full of biased one-sided stories from the personal viewpoints of the staff who all write the company line. Whatever idiotic policy of the day that the publisher and editor come up with is parroted by all the rest of the staff. Since most of the publisher's ideas are sophomoric and based on his personal issues, the RJ (known by many as the RAJ- the rag it is) is full of stories having no merit or validity.
Take for example today's editorial on the Democrats requiring identification at the caucus sites. The Republicans are also requiring identification. How else would the party officials know that you are registered and eligible to vote? They do not have the same up to the minute lists as the government has and they have over a thousand polling places that unlike a real election do not have lists and poll watchers. But none of that is in editorial. It is true that there is an inconsistency in the policy of not requiring identification when voting but there is a difference when the governemnt has such an advantage with security and control than these parties do for their caucases. The RJ would never want the public to have the full story on any issue.
The RJ's motto should be "All the news we dream up today"