We had fun using the weekend Review-Journal as a drop-newspaper cloth to paint since there really wasn't anything interesting in it.

On Sunday the paper did finally publish a voter guide after thousands of voters cast their ballots.

The guide is nearly impossible to read with its jumbled lay-out. And its lack of interactivity shows just how committed to the old days the paper remains. In fact, a cursory look at some of the judicial races shows the reporters didn't even so much as run a candidate's name through Google, let alone the court system.

If you'd like to compare judicial voter guide reports, let me be so bold as to suggest http://www.nevadavoterguide.org

Of course, I'm biased, having written some of that guide and edited all of it.

Sunday's paper also had a funny little piece about early voting that seemed shocked that voters actually do vote early. (That angle probably stems from the paper's decision not to give voters a voter guide until a full day after the polls opened.) http://www.lvrj.com/news/thousands-go-to-polls-for-early-voting-94667124.html

The story, which does the classic RJ thing of discrediting the lede by the fourth graph (in this case, Larry Lomax's quote), also suddenly finds the paper interested in the impact of Sue Lowden's infamous bartering comments.

As the story played out throughout April and early May, the RJ ignored it and then tried to justify it with a health story whose headline suggested bartering is a viable option.

Now that Lowden's remarks are being seen as a critical element to her double-digit drop in the polls, it's suddenly appearing in every story the RJ writes.

**

Today, the Review-Journal has a glaring error on the top of the front page. It's the kind of error that will never be corrected. Why? Cause it's in a headline that only refers you to another section of the paper.

This refer headline (might as well be a reefer error) declares: "Suns top Lakers, avoid series sweep" and points you to the Sports section.

This refers to Game 3 of a best-of-seven series. Technically a team winning game three does avoid a series sweep. But avoiding a sweep is only typically used in a Game 4 situation. Let's say the Flyers meet the Blackhawks for the Stanley Cup and the Flyers take Game 1. The RJ could write: "Flyers avoid series sweep." Accurate, but completely misleading -- and again, par for the course in the RJ.

Another way you can see who's actually reading the RJ (and writing it I suppose) is to look at the song that leads the political notebook item by Laura Myers.

She goes with Jerry Lee Lewis (and not even Great Balls of Fire).  We don't mean to suggest the RJ is stuck in the 1950s, just that most of the people who would still subscribe to it clearly remember "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On."

Now just to be really picky. Since "Gotcha" means "I got you" Myers could have gone with James Brown with the added parenthetical "I feel good" or good old Sonny and Cher, the latter of whom is actually still alive and relevant in Las Vegas, unlike Ms. Myers' paper.

**

There is an actual correction in the RJ today, well one buried deep within a Norm Clarke column, anyway.

"Correction : "Love Ranch" is not the first time Taylor Hackford directed his wife, Helen Mirren. They teamed up in "White Nights" in 1985."

Why the Hell isn't that run in the paper's correction spot?

By now you may know the RJ, through its parent company and a copyright protection LLC has sued the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada for copyright infringement.

Righthaven LLC has also sued a sports booster website for Texas Christian University, a Henderson-based Realtor and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

We'll get to the RJ's new business model in a second.

But first, we have to ask why the RJ hasn't sued those on the right side of the aisle who have been just as willing to post Review-Journal articles.

Here's a look back at the week the RJ once again flubbed.

We'll start with a look at today's paper. And we apologize for not posting since Monday, but we were concentrating on the http://www.nevadavoterguide.org

Today, the Review-Journal has a heart attack on the top of the front page. "Angle irks some GOP insiders" screams the top-of-the-fold headline.

The piece, by Laura Myers, is full of unnamed and unidentified sources that she's granted anonymity with no stated purpose. That should be the first RED FLAG to readers. http://www.lvrj.com/news/angle-irks-some-gop-insiders-94565394.html

Myers also makes it appear as though nobody knew the race had shifted until the Review-Journal's Mason-Dixon poll. She also criticizes the methodology of Patriot Majority's poll, but offers no equal time to the widespread criticism of the RJ's polling methodology or survey sample.

"The results could be suspect, however, because of the source and the methodology," is what Myers writes about Patriot Majority's poll.

Ms. Pot calling the Kettle Black?

The other telling political story today is by Ben Spillman. Spillman apparently was asked to go cover a Democratic primary race. His laziness shines through.

He tells his readers he knows nothing about the candidates running to be a HEARTBEAT AWAY and then proves his ignorance by leading his story with the also-ran candidate.  http://www.lvrj.com/news/lieutenant-governor-hopefuls-tout-their-qualities-for-post-94565399.html

This is akin to Spillman leading a story about the GOP nomination for governor by featuring Tony Atwood.

Atwood is on the Republican ballot for governor. You don't hear about him because he's not a credible candidate. Neither is Bob Goodman.

Anyway, not only does Spillman show no curiosity in the Democratic race for lieutenant governor, he also says he's completely ignorant.

"The debate, held Thursday at Main Street Station and hosted by the Democratic Lawyers Caucus, was a chance for the Democratic candidates to define themselves in a race that has no clear leader because no polling data have been made public."

These four candidates have probably appeared together more than any of the major GOP candidates running for Senate or governor have.

There are also two really bad corrections in today's RJ.

This one is unbelievable.

On Thursday there was a handy little clarification that probably was the spark that forced Ben Spillman to overcompensate in Friday's story about the lieutenant governor's race.

"Monday's Political Eye column omitted Bob Goodman when listing Democratic candidates for lieutenant governor."

**

On Wednesday we got a very interesting take from Laura Myers on Sue Lowden's performance on the Face to Face with Jon Ralston debate.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/gop-senate-hopefuls-debate-who-has-best-chance-to-beat-reid-94234059.html

The headline is "GOP Senate hopefuls debate who has best chance to beat Reid."

First of all, that part of the debate didn't air until Wednesday night. And it certainly wasn't the focus of what aired Tuesday. (We don't know whether there was an unwritten embargo that Myers broke.)

The headline doesn't even come close to accurately describing the debate. And it shows once again the thread of "beat Reid" that's been in headlines all year.

That's how the RJ sways the news coverage through placement and headlines.

Here's how Myers sways it through her words.

During the debate, Ralston asked Lowden about her television ad which suggests the bartering remarks were "taken out of context." Ralston asked Lowden how they were taken out of context given the fact that she has defended her own bartering statement by saying, "I'm not backing down from that system."

Lowden answered with a bald-faced lie. She said, "I never said that." "I never said, 'that system'."

Well as millions of people throughout the country know thanks to her Macaca Moment -- she did say "I'm not backing down from that system."

So how did Myers explain this exchange?

"She also denied saying, "I'm not backing down from that system" of bartering, although those words were captured on a Northern Nevada television program when she defended herself."

"Although those words were captured"???

WTF?!?

The way you write this is either nicely: "Lowden denied saying: 'I'm not backing down from that system.' Actually, she did say that on Nevada Newsmakers on April 20."

Or you write it nastily: "Lowden lied when she denied saying: 'I'm not backing down from that system.' Lowden's statement defending her bartering comments is: "I'm not backing down from that system."

Also on Wednesday, Myers did a story about the allegations that Sue Lowden's campaign bus is illegal.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/nevada-democrats-plan-fec-filing-over-lowden-bus-94200079.html

Myers lets Lowden's campaign boss Robert Uithoven ignore her question up pretty high in the story. Then in the 20th paragraph, well at the bottom of the jump, she writes this.. "If federal authorities determine Lowden violated campaign donation limits, she could face a felony charge punishable with up to five years in jail and up to $1 million in fines, the Democratic Party said."

This is a classic example of how the subtle placements in a story sway the readers' opinions.

Myers also chalked up a correction Wednesday.

**

On Tuesday, Laura Myers finally writes about the questionable campaign bus donation issue that's been simmering since the Showdown in Searchlight.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/tarkanian-questions-lowden-s-use-of-campaign-bus-94013829.html

This is where she spells a name wrong.

There's also a correction Tuesday.

"A story about Paragon Gaming in Sunday's Business Section contained an error. The correct name of the stadium in Vancouver, British Columbia, is BC Place."

Did nobody at the RJ watch the Olympics?

This mistake was from a Howard Stutz article.

**

On Monday, Kristi Jourdan discovers (sort of) the use of social networking by candidates.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/candidates-just-can-t-stop-networking-93914419.html

We wish she would have included all the various other networks for and against these candidates. Our favorite -- One Million Chickens for Sue Lowden. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=110877795617686&ref=ts

Ah, the Review-Journal finally discovers (sort of) the online social networking of Senate candidates.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/candidates-just-can-t-stop-networking-93914419.html

Too bad Kristi Jourdan didn't include all the sundry other social networks that are officially a part of the candidate's mix. Progressives for Reid and African Americans for Reid spring to mind.

At least Jourdan wrote about new media. We're not sure who was the arbiter of her pros vs. cons though. It would seem the MSM still doesn't quite get it.

**

On Sunday, the Review-Journal finally got around to profiling Michael Montandon's bid for the GOP nomination for governor. Again, there's no labeling of this piece by Benjamin Spillman as one in a series.

And, if you're like many voters who are just tuning in because Early Voting starts Saturday, you might think Montandon's the only gub candidate the paper cares about.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/montandon-counting-on-supporters-to-get-out-64-000-votes-93877574.html

**

On Saturday, Laura Myers took a stab at the monumental Citizens United case by suggesting its flooding Nevada with money. http://www.lvrj.com/news/outside-funding-crucial-to-race-93839599.html

Problem is she spent the bulk of the article detailing the type of Independent Expenditures that have nothing to do with the decision. She didn't even mention the real corporate money we've seen dumped in Nevada this cycle -- $1.4 million against Rep. Dina Titus' vote on health care.

We're bound to see more corporate money as the calendar nears November. For now it's just largely been the same old 527 expenditures. Sadly, Myers talks up this flood of new money without once questioning whether there's an alternative. There is. It's called public financing. http://www.publicampaign.org

**

There was also a correction on Saturday.

"In an article in Friday's paper, it was incorrectly stated that the coroner's office has determined a cause and manner of death for Race Matthew Salazar, a 19-year-old freshman who was found dead in a dorm at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas in February. The cause of his death remains undetermined, according to the coroner's office."

Wow. This is quite the correction.

Antonio Planas reported: "A 19-year-old freshman student found dead in February inside a dorm room at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas died of natural causes, the Clark County coroner's office said Thursday. According to the coroner's office, Race Matthew Salazar died from an "intracranial hemorrhage due to a ruptured berry aneurism."

So, the cause is actual undetermined.

And that's one heck of a bad mistake.

Sometimes it's what's missing from an article that shows the RJ's bias.

Today, Ed Vogel has a fairly straightforward piece about the right-wingers appealing a court decision that keeps another right-winger on the ballot.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/appeal-planned-over-ashjian-candidacy-93700809.html

Funny how that discrediting campaign keeps going despite all the folks on the right claiming Scott Ashjian won't impact the race.

But what's really missing from this piece is who is funding the appeal.

Chuck Muth, onetime creator of the Dump Reid political action committee and a conservative stalwart who appears to be championing Sue Lowden's bid for the Senate, has agreed to fund the appeal.

That, of course, raises lots of questions, not just about Muth's political role, but about the non-profit status of his operations, including his "news" service.

Of course, the RJ would never write anything about that. They just cover the simplistic with neither the political perspective needed in this story or the basic political reporting 101 mantra -- FOLLOW THE MONEY.

**

There's more skewed polling in the RJ today -- this time in the governor's race.

Benjamin Spillman uses his paper's flawed poll to write an absolute type lede that is highly leading, if not out-rightly biased.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/sandoval-maintains-lead-93757664.html

Not only does Spillman write lock step with the poll, he also goes into Gov. Gibbons is a lame duck. Wow. Imagine if the poll is wrong.

And why might it be wrong. Well it clearly doesn't sample correctly, especially when it comes to men and women. It seems Editor Thomas Mitchell's push for women to lose the right to vote may be playing into the paper's polling.

Mitchell has previously argued, with no sense of sarcasm, that women should lose the right to vote because they favor Democratic candidates at higher rates.

Maybe that's why the RJ's poll respondent's gender breakdown is 58 percent male. There's also a clear problem with who the RJ is asking.

Here's Jon Ralston's take on the numbers in his column today.

The relevant part about the polling methodology -- "Having said all of this, I am not sure the poll can be completely trusted. It is done by random digit dialing, a technique that may not capture only registered voters. The gender breakdown is bizarre — 58 percent were men, which surely will not reflect the June 8 electorate. And the regional breakdowns are slightly askew, with Washoe County slightly overrepresented and Clark County and the rurals slightly underrepresented."

Ah, the RJ does have a poll for us this month after all.

Just a little later than in previous months. Maybe they wanted to let Sue Lowden have a chance to recover. They did give Lowden three free stories in the days leading up the poll. One was on her new ad; one was on Jon Kyl stumping for her; one was a non-story about Lowden claiming Reid should inject himself in a business dispute between Perini and MGM Grand.

So the poll is taken after voters have had a chance (we think) to see Lowden's factually-deficient response ad.

And it still shows numbers that reporter Laura Myers, as recently as Monday, was completely dispelling.

For the record -- Myers has been reporting that while the race has tightened, Lowden still enjoyed a double-digit advantage.

Not so, says the RJ's pollster. http://www.lvrj.com/hottopics/politics/polls/may_2010_1_polls.html

In her story about the poll, Myers gives the entire credit for the movement to the Tea Party Express. http://www.lvrj.com/news/tea-party-power-fuels-angle-93662969.html

We find that an interesting take given that the same poll shows Angle lagging substantially behind both Lowden and Danny Tarkanian in name recognition. Republicans know Danny and Sue. About 15 percent of Republicans don't know Angle.

That's the same percentage of voters who said Lowden's chicken statement (skewed by the poll, by the way) who said it would likely impact their decision in the race.

When you're talking about a three-way coin flip (assuming the RJ's poll is accurate), 15 percent is a big deal.

Oh, and did Tarkanian really lose ground? He's still right there, and could be ahead of Angle (given the margin of error). Myers should know that a 3-point difference ain't squat with a 4.5 percent margin of error.

Now on to why the poll's question about bartering was so off.

This is a topic that's near and dear to our sister org, ProgressNow Nevada.  So we can quote Lowden's statements verbatim. The RJ poll didn't. It also didn't put them into proper perspective.

Here's what the pollster asked: "Republican Senate candidate Sue Lowden recently made remarks about bartering with doctors and saying, "In the olden days our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor." Do Lowden's remarks make you more likely to vote for her in the primary, less likely to vote for her or do they have no real effect on your voting decision?"

Actually, it wasn't just harkening back to the "olden days." The rest of that quote is, "I'm not backing down from that system."

On April 6, Lowden discussed bartering and paying your doctor with cash. On April 20 she defended bartering with the chicken comment and the critical line, "I'm not backing down from that system."

That's how you ask that question. You either quote the entire relevant part of her statement, or you put it in perspective. The RJ did neither.

We happen to think that given Angle's lower-than-the-rest name ID, that Chicken Sue has hurt herself.

Maybe we won't see that until the so-called 18 percent of undecideds decide. So is the RJ's reporting about Lowden as being crushed by the Tea Party fervor for Angle hurting the presumptive GOP nominee?

Time will tell.

**

Another correction today on a business story.

"Numbers were transposed in a chart on Nevada gaming win in Wednesday's Business section. The statewide win in March was $912.2 million, a 0.7 decrease compared with $918.2 million in March 2009. The Clark County win was $779.5 million, a 0.9 percent decrease compared with $786.5 million in March 2009."

Ok, we get it. It's hard to separate Clark County from the state in terms of gaming. But come on. It is the biggest industry. It is a massive part of Nevada's revenue stream. Get it right.

Howard Stutz wrote the story correctly, so we don't know which copy editor or graphics artist screwed them up.

This is the second business copy editor-type error this week.

The Review-Journal mocks a new study that suggests the state needs to diversify its tax base.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/higher-taxes--other-steps-urged-to-improve-nevadans--lives-93503679.html

This is an Ed Vogel story that on its face is simply reporting the preliminary findings of the Vision Stakeholder group's six-figure study.

But this is not exactly written or played as a fair piece. Why? Vogel gives ample space to critics of the study. And his editors play the study's executive summary with the same weight as a blog post written by a conservative study member criticizing the findings.

Only in the RJ would a blog post outweigh the statements by the governor or legislators or normal people like Don Snyder who care about the future of the state.

The RJ is very good at reporting processes. Study requested. Request criticized. Study has costs. Costs paid for. Study announces its group. Group members criticized. Study makes recommendations. Recommendations criticized.

At the end of the day we still have a $3 billion deficit. And no, Mr. Vogel, it is not $3 billion from "pre-recession" days. It's $3 billion from the 2009 Legislature and the 2010 special session.

Economists put the start of the recession in 2008. We know that's problematic for the conservative paper. But facts are facts.

**

Speaking of facts.

One of the biggest problems with the RJ's slanted stories is placement. And today there's a complete non-story that somehow still made it into print.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/lowden-hits-reid-on-citycenter-93563179.html

The headline: "Lowden hits Reid on City Center."

This is a complete non story written by Laura Myers. If you want proof it's a non story, just read it. Myers has this great accusatory lede that the facts then spend graph after graph disputing.

The fact that she wrote it is telling.

The fact that Lowden actually tried to get someone to write this is perhaps most telling.

Once again, we must ask the RJ ---- WHERE IS YOUR MONTHLY TRACKING POLL??

It is now May 12. Interesting silence from the paper that loves Lowden.

Maybe just maybe somebody at the RJ was on vacation and they forgot to do the monthy poll. Or maybe something more insidious is going on.

We know there was news in the US Senate race Tuesday. A new poll suggests the race has completely tightened, that Sen. Harry Reid is now beating Lowden and that Danny Tarkanian is in a better position to take on Reid than Chicken Sue.

Now, that poll can be disputed and fussed about. But it's a story nonetheless. It's just not the kind of story you'll see in the slanted and biased RJ.

**

There's also a correction in today's print edition, but no correction mentioned online.

The dispute is a headline in Tuesday's paper on a story written by Arnold Knightly.

http://www.lvrj.com/business/hard-rock-posts--26_5-million-loss-in-first-quarter-93284184.html

The correction that ran in today's paper claims the headline was wrong. Good luck finding that online.

First an apology for missing two daily updates.

Now let's set the way-back machine to Friday when Laura Myers cheered on beleaguered GOP candidate Sue Lowden's new ads.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/new-lowden-ad-slams-reid--opponents-for--lies-and-dirty-tricks--93137559.html

The article reads as if Myers is breathing a sigh of relief that the top GOP candidate is still alive and well.

More free press for Lowden and Co. by Myers. http://www.lvrj.com/news/republicans-speak-out-on-oil-spill-93055164.html

Her "Drill Baby, Still" article helped get five would-be Harry Reid dethroners on the section front.

There were also two corrections Friday.

"Two shows will not share an MGM Grand theater as described in the print edition of today's Neon. After the section was printed, show producers decided to move "Girls Night: The Musical" into the Studio 54 nightclub and keep "Jabbawockeez MÜS.I.C" in the Hollywood Theatre."

The above correction stems from stories written by  Mike Weatherford. This is clearly a clarification beyond Weatherford's control, but the editors apparently knocked him with a correction.

The second correction comes from GA reporter Richard Lake, who has been covering the higher education budget cuts.

"Wednesday's Review-Journal misidentified the person who spoke on behalf of UNLV's Informatics program before the Faculty Senate on Tuesday. He was Bill Culbreth ."

**

The weekend editions were really good if you have a new puppy.

Myers was back with more Lowden round-the-clock coverage. This time covering a fund-raiser with Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., in which Kyl also defends bartering.  http://www.lvrj.com/news/arizona-senator-kyl-praises-lowden-at-fundraiser-93205269.html

Maybe if enough people say it's OK the RJ can save Lowden from her free-range lunacy.

The very-busy Myers also had a round-up of GOP Senate candidate endorsements. http://www.lvrj.com/news/senate-candidates-seek-edge-93223929.html

On Sunday, the RJ once again turned over prime real estate on its edit page to the Nevada Policy Research Institute. http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/ivory-tower-elitists-reveal-their-bizarre-fantasies-93224349.html

And then on Monday, the practically invisible Ben Spillman rejoined his paper's political reporting with a notebook that devoted half of its space to a Senate race in Arizona involving a guy nobody's ever heard of. Why? He used to work for NPRI. http://www.lvrj.com/news/candidate--arizona-law-not-wise-here-93258984.html

We thought the RJ was Nevada's biggest newspaper. What's with all the uninteresting Arizona news?

**
Now finally, we're back to the present with a look at today's RJ.

Myers can apparently only get section front play when she's writing about the RJ's beloved Lowden. Her piece today on Danny Tarkanian's new ad was buried deep (well as deep as you can get in shallow waters) in the B section.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/tarkanian-ad-smacks-reid-on-immigration-reform--bailout--93348869.html

**

And now that we think of it. It's May 11, long past time to see results trickling out of the RJ's monthly tracking polls.

So why haven't we seen anything?

Is it because Chicken Sue has lost ground? Have Harry Reid's numbers moved up?

Just wondering. Because silence from the RJ speaks as loudly as their skewed coverage.

The first time RJ news readers learned the GOP Senate candidate had gone bat crazy was Sunday in a piece that completely tones down Sue Lowden's inane comments about bartering for health care.

The Review-Journal has found doctors that have accepted some form of non-monetary payment for services.

Wow. Wonder who assigned the generally-reliable health reporter to do this one. http://www.lvrj.com/news/bartering-has-its-limits-92037324.html

In Paul Harasim's fairly straight piece (we suspect we know who was reading it), he speaks with doctors who have accepted tickets to magic shows and Dalai Lama blessings in exchange for services.

Boy it sure is hard to find conservative doctors who really want Harry Reid to lose.

Sure enough, each one of them tried to defend Sue Lowden candidate's position, and sure enough, each one of them fell short because her position isn't practical or based in any form of reality. Even the former GOP candidate/doctor Harasim quotes admits it wouldn't work.

What Harasim never does quote is the crazy statements Lowden has made about bartering, about bringing chickens to the doctor.

In fact, the RJ has ignored this national story only because it has been rooting so hard for Lowden to win the primary. Don't want to hurt the front-runner or make her spend any more money before the June 8 primary.

Ironically, the only place you've even seen a mention of Lowden's freakish comments on Nevada News Makers in defense of her bartering idea is in the Sunday Viewpoints section "Say What" feature. Lowden made these remarks Monday. The RJ first prints them Sunday, and only probably, so they could print the Reid campaign response to them. "Has she lost her mind?"

Funny how that libertarian streak plays out. At least the Opinion page editors know people have an opinion about what Lowden said. I'm guessing they might even have letters to the editor they can't run because their paper hasn't covered the topic. Just a guess. I never tell people to write letters to the RJ.

It's amazing it took a full week for the paper to print Lowden's statement. And it's in a feature that isn't found online. How convenient.

Harasim's piece is ludicrous taken from a health care perspective and without the full context of the campaign. And even the doctors, who as a general rule can't wait to get rid of Harry Reid, admit this system wouldn't work.

Doctors are as screwed by Big Insurance as anyone. That's why each of the doctors Harasim quotes as saying bartering is cool provides the caveat that they can't really barter because they have so many expenses.

The RJ proved Sunday just how out of touch it is by trying to paint a defenseless political statement as a practical policy. It is patently crazy to write this story without referencing the larger national story the bartering statements have become. And it's even more nutty to put the piece on the front of the local section.

There's a reason the bartering plank isn't on Lowden's website. It's crazy. No one would take it seriously as policy.

Why the RJ did is very telling indeed.