Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: R-J editor hits bottom

Sunday, Sept. 12, 1999 | 9:49 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

HEY, MITCHELL, you bully, why don't you pick on someone your own size?

I refer, of course, to the editor of the Review-Journal, Tom Mitchell, who has managed to stoop far lower in the annals of American newspapering than anyone previously thought possible. In fact, in somehow trying to strike back at me for some truth I have written about him in the past, he has acted like a murderer, for he has tried to kill the valued and well-deserved reputation of one of this valley's finest and most knowledgeable reporters. To take a person's life is a terrible crime. To assassinate a person's good name is also a heinous act. For those of you who missed his in-artfully written hit piece last Sunday, Mitchell tried to boost the quality of his own newspaper's work by dishonestly attacking the integrity of Mary Manning. Mary has been a SUN reporter for decades. During that time she has become the undisputed expert on environmental issues in this valley and a journalist without peer when it comes to her knowledge and understanding of the nuclear waste issue.

She has never been associated with a hint of scandal in her profession and is held in the highest regard by both the reading public and the critical scientific community that she writes about regularly. In short, the Review-Journal wishes it could hire someone of her caliber and strength but, alas, it can't.

I am writing this, in part, because I share some of the blame for Mitchell's dishonesty in print. Had I not irked him a few weeks ago by printing some truth about him, he wouldn't have felt compelled to strike back. And had I at least picked upon someone with a brain large enough to tell right from wrong, then the retort would have been within the bounds of decency and somewhat short of libelous.

As it turned out, though, Mitchell accused Mary of the worst kind of offense for someone in our profession, plagiarism. Then he compounded it by acting stupid.

The fact is that Mary did not plagiarize anything. Without even commenting on the R-J reporter's ability to discern and discuss a leaked scientific report, I can tell you that Mary is the last person in this town who would need such help. She is an expert.

Of course Mitchell did not want to discuss the facts, which means he is content to leave on the record his erroneous and malicious accusation that Mary committed a grievous wrong. Besides the adverse legal implications for the Review-Journal of such a ridiculous stance, Mitchell's stubborn arrogance reflects negatively on his entire reportorial staff, for each of them knows that if Mitchell cares not about besmirching Mary's integrity, he can care little about protecting their own.

I said that Mitchell not only acted in a criminal-like manner -- by trying to assassinate Mary's character -- but that he compounded his actions by being stupid. The first he can rectify with an apology, the second is more difficult.

After not so subtly calling Mary a plagiarist, he invited his readers to compare the two stories so they could see for themselves. I have taken him up on the offer. So have many others I know. Given the fact that both reporters wrote from a four-page executive summary of the scientific report, there is no way the stories could not have used the same facts.

The difference between the two stories, however, is night and day and shows Mary's superior understanding of the material. By encouraging readers to do a little comparison shopping, Mitchell discouraged those same people from relying on what the R-J reporter wrote and promoted Mary Manning and the Las Vegas Sun to anyone interested in quality environmental reporting.

You can't fix stupid!

This is the kind of issue that doesn't just go away with the Sunday newspaper. People have little else that is more precious to them than their good name and their integrity. In Mary's case, she has everyone at the Sun -- and, probably if the truth were told, most of the reporters at the R-J -- behind her. Perhaps Mitchell's publisher should get involved in this one before it gets too far out of hand.

That is, of course, unless he was in on the dirty deed. Then he would be an accomplice to the malicious behavior of his editor and that would, indeed, be very bad for their side.

One of the good things about publishing a daily newspaper is that there is a paper every day in which a retraction and apology can be made. As eternal optimists and believers in responsible journalism, we live in hope that conscience and good sense will prevail down the street. Just in case, though, I'll prepare a strong letter to follow.

In the meantime, Mitchell, pick on someone your own size. That is, if you can find someone that small.