Since billionaire Sheldon Adelson’s secret purchase of The Las Vegas Review-Journal last fall, the paper’s come under some fire for how it’s covered topics Adelson has financial interests in. One of the biggest is the proposed $1.9 billion stadium to lure the Oakland Raiders to Vegas (and also provide a home for UNLV), which has Adelson’s Sands Corporation helming the project as its largest contributor (outside of the $750 million in public funding they’re seeking). The Review-Journal took flak in February when its editorial board strongly endorsed the project, and now it’s seeing more criticism thanks to a leaked internal memo asking reporters to poll local candidates about the stadium but not make their responses public. That memo, from assistant city editor Don Ham, was published by local journalist Jon Ralston Friday and brought to wider attention by Deadspin’s Barry Petchesky. Here it is:
All of you who are handling state Senate, state Assembly and Clark County Commission races for the tab should make sure to ask this very timely question of the candidates. This question is NOT going to be added to the question asked of candidates for the online election package, though. Should public money, in the form of room taxes, be used to build a proposed stadium in Las Vegas. Why or why not? Any questions, see me. Thanks.
As Ralston notes, this certainly seems highly problematic, and the R-J editors aren’t commenting on it:
Notice the capitalization of the word NOT. What in the world does that mean? Why ask a question of candidates that will not be used in the paper? Are they getting a head count for Adelson? Reminding candidates the newspaper could be used as a bludgeon?
Note that these are candidates running for the offices that could vote on public money for the stadium. Adelson has demanded that $750 million in room taxes be used or he will walk away from the plan to bring the Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas.
I am not sure in all my years in journalism I have ever seen anything like this: Reporters asked to query candidates on an issue of great concern to the owner but told it will not be published.
Neither Ham nor Editor Keith Moyer responded to requests for comment.
This is a new nadir for the organization.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with asking about the stadium, as that would seem to be an important election issue, but dictating that all reporters ask about it is a little odd. It’s the demand to keep their responses out of the paper that’s really suspect, though; that suggests that Adelson wants to use his reporters for information-gathering purposes rather than actual reporting, and perhaps even that he may try to sway “No” candidates before they make that position public. This isn’t the first time he’s been accused of that, either, as similar accusations emerged from how R-J reporters were told to “monitor” a judge overseeing a case involving Adelson. This will certainly be worth keeping an eye on to see if Adelson tries to use his paper to gain political information and further influence decisions around the stadium project.
Comments are closed.