We couldn't even guess at how ridiculous the Review-Journal's editorial response to the Times Square terrorist capture would be.

After they put the arrest on the top of the front page we figured Sherm would have difficulty slamming Obama for being soft on terror.

But we never envisioned the stretch offered in today's editorial http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/another-terror-try-92846234.html which really has to be read in its entirety.

Basically, the RJ's position -- since it can't criticize the Obama Justice Department for capturing a terror suspect -- is to slam people on the left who have stated previously that they feared violence could arise out of radical elements of the Tea Party movement.

We're not sure what planet the RJ is on here.

Nobody has ever denied the existence of Islamic terrorists. Suggesting we do somehow negates nine years of history.

It's also interesting how the editorial sets itself apart from mainstream media.

Facts remain facts, and the most radical portions of the Tea Party movement could easily someday denigrate into violent behavior that nobody wants to see. Has the RJ never heard of Tim McVeigh.

**

The corrections mount.

Today, the RJ had to admit it tried to pull a fast one on senior citizens.

"There has been a recent change in the open enrollment period in which a Medicare beneficiary can switch from Medicare Advantage to Original Medicare. The enrollment period stated in Sunday's Savvy Senior was incorrect. Starting next year, the dates of open enrollment will be Jan. 1 through Feb. 15."

We have no idea who made that error, or who wrote the ridiculous correction that tries to claim the error wasn't the RJ's.

The other correction is charged to Steve Bornfeld for screwing up a name.

"An actress sharing the lead role in the play "The Spitfire Grill" at Las Vegas Academy was misidentified in a story in Neon Thursday on April 29. Her name is Rachel Richards."

The RJ is so boring today, it actually made us read the Las Vegas Sun more closely.

And we found this interesting little multi-media issue on the back page dealing with political discourse.

Now if you only read the Sun online (which covers most of you reading this) you'll note that the Sun has plenty of puffery about patroling blog posts on its stories.

"Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed."

In order to post a comment to a story, you have to register and then you get to see the big-old Reader Agreement, which basically says you'll be an ethical commenter.

But today on the back page of the actual Sun section it says: "Political discourse. In an effort to further elevate the dialogue, we are requiring readers to log in with their Facebook accounts to leave comments on politics (sic) stories on lasvegassun.com. We believe this accountability will cut down on the meanness and name-calling that occurs when commenters are granted anonymity. Find details on the new policy at lasvegassun.com"

Wow.

So I go to the site to see this big change.

And not only is the policy nowhere, there's been no change to posting comments on political stories.

Funny how the paper is apparently ahead of the multi-media team. And clearly, the two still don't know what the other is doing. We'll have more on this in a moment.

But first of all, assuming this is the new policy, here's an question. Why would the Sun require this extra layer of "protection" against "name-calling" on the comment section of stories when it runs live tweets right on its website from whomever follows The Sun's Firehose on Twitter.

So is the Sun really interested in cleaning up its site, or does it have some kind of financial arrangement with Facebook?

Or is it just that it wants to be seen as less Wild West than the Review-Journal?

It's got to be a business decision. Maybe online advertisers bitched. Maybe there is some kind of deal with Facebook. At any rate, speaking for me, I have no problem with the new policy, provided there really is one.

When I post something, you know it's me.

But getting back to the whole multi-media vs. traditional paper rift.

Today, I kid you not, the third item in the Early Line feature on the Sun's political section talks about Rep. Shelley Berkley's indecision about the health care vote. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/politics/

The Face to Face videos on the site run to April 22, which would be last Thursday.

And the video is from the March 27 Searchlight event.

I know, I know, this site has old stuff on it, too.

But we're not a daily paper.

So, if someone over at the Sun's multi-media section would like to figure out why the newspaper printed a new policy on the back page today, we might get somewhere.

Until then, it appears business as usual for commenters at the Sun online.

We've wondered for a months why the Review-Journal doesn't find it necessary to label its political profiles.

Sunday provided yet another example of how a simple lack of a label leads many to question the paper's motives.

Benjamin Spillman's piece on Brian Sandoval http://www.lvrj.com/news/sandoval--takes-hits-left--right-92613899.html (we'll get to the reporting problem in a minute) doesn't identify itself as one of three GOP primary profiles.

Are we to assume then that this is the only candidate the RJ is going to feature?

After all, Sandoval performs the best in a head-to-head general election match-up with Democrat Rory Reid. So, is the RJ just highlighting its favorite in the race, or is it simply a matter of a missed label telling the reader additional profiles of Jim Gibbons and Mike Montandon will be forthcoming.

And if the others are coming (again a big IF knowing this paper's track record), why was Sandoval featured first?

Now to Spillman's laziness. Spillman doggedly checks out all of the allegations made in the DGA-front group's ad against Sandoval.

But he does nothing to fact check Sandoval's own bio.

"Elected to the Assembly in 1994, he joined partners to form another law firm to represent Nevada utility company shareholders."

Technically accurate.

What Sandoval actually did was represent Nevada Power in a case that resulted in excessive electric rates. That's what representing " Nevada utility company shareholders" means. Too bad Spillman just regurgitates what Sandoval's campaign has crafted.

Spillman gives exactly one paragraph to Sandoval's election to Attorney General and his work as the AG (outside of the disputed tax case of 2003 in which Spillman actually quotes former Gov. Kenny Guinn to stand up for Sandoval.

Strange choice.

Sandoval's entire working bio is dumbed down to two and half graphs and contains none of the controversies or the overarching problem with Sandoval -- he quits. He's quit every job he's ever had, typically after very small stints.

That's nowhere in the piece.

And nowhere in the piece will you find a proper label about what it is.

**

The Times Square terror plot was thwarted by the Obama Justice department.

Hmm. It leads the RJ today, but what will that mean Sunday when Sherm again tells us how soft on terror Obama is?

**

Don't try to golf at South Shore over at Lake Las Vegas.

This is the latest complete F-up by the RJ on Lake Las Vegas issues. This one by Hubble Smith.

"A story in Saturday's Review-Journal Business section incorrectly stated that South Shore Golf Club at Lake Las Vegas is a public course. South Shore remains private with limited access to public play by resort guests."

File this under Things They Don't Correct.

Last week, school reporter James Haug wrote his latest error-filled piece. http://www.lvrj.com/news/rogers-targets-new-post-91795254.html

This piece is about the potential for Sunbelt Communications owner Jim Rogers to serve as interim superintendent of Clark County Schools. First of all Haug said Rogers worked for $1 per year for five years.

Federal law mandated a minimum salary for Rogers'  position as Chancellor of Nevada's System of Higher Education. What Rogers had to do was accept the minimum salary of $23,660 and then donate the money back to the system in the form of scholarships.

So, Haug's wrong about the $5 salary thing.

Another error Haug made since he never even Googled Rogers, was reporting, "Rogers said he's not out to 'clean house,' noting that he left the university system intact when he was chancellor."

What? Left the university system intact?

Even if you only cover K-12 schools, you might occasionally have had reason to watch higher ed. After all, Rogers famously blamed the K-12 system's inadequacies for sticking the higher ed system with student remediation costs.

And even if you somehow believe Rogers wasn't instrumental in the ouster of two UNLV presidents and the UNR boss during his tenure, it's important to provide this context to your readers.

When Rogers was chancellor, Carol Harter was forced out at UNLV. Rogers tapped the disastrous replacement David Ashley, whom Rogers also helped show the door. At UNR, Rogers pushed out John Lilley and then donated $80,000 a year toward the new president's salary.

If that's not cleaning house and putting your own people in jobs, we don't know what is. And if you're going to let Rogers make a statement like that, you'd better damn well provide readers with facts to let them determine whether to believe Rogers.

Lastly, there was a typo in both Haug's print and online version of the story. Originally, he wrote that Rogers wanted to be interim superintendent from "September to June of 2010."

Now clearly that's impossible on the calendar and it was just a typo none of the crack copy editors caught.

But it's also a typo the RJ hasn't corrected. Although we will note the online version has been changed.

So, the RJ is back to its old habits of hiding reporters' corrections by simply amending the online versions. And it's back to letting factually inaccurate works by Haug fuel local debate about critical issues.

In a word: Insidious.

**

Here's a classic news flash from Monday afternoon, in which the RJ can't even spell  its own name correctly.

Gunman killed, deputy wounded in Pahrump shootout

There's this little trial going on in Las Vegas about monetary damages for those who contracted deadly diseases as a result of the most insidious medical scandal in the nation.

Of course, we don't mean little. And we're curious, frankly, why the Review-Journal doesn't have something, at least a brief, on this every day.

Today, the trial led the paper. http://www.lvrj.com/news/school-s-founder-testifies-for-plaintiff-in-endoscopy-trial-92113889.html

The mayor's wife testified, as did the plaintiff.

Now, the Review-Journal's Brian Haynes has been covering the legal case well, if not often enough.

This is precisely the type of case the RJ should write about every day. This case, the first to go to trial, could have major ramifications for hundreds of other Nevadans who contracted hepatitis C during routine endoscopies.

If this were O.J. or Michael Jackson's doctor, they'd cover every procedural blip.

The fact that this is a major medical malpractice case with major ramifications for all of those other plaintiffs out there should be worthy of daily coverage.

**

There's one thing you can always count on the RJ to do -- ardently monitor free speech issues.

So, it's no surprise really, that the RJ is covering like a mountain the equivalent of a political molehill.

Jacob Hafter, a Republican candidate for Attorney General, lied to reporters on a conference call and then sued to try to get the state bar to stop investigating his BS. http://www.lvrj.com/news/judge-denies-candidate-s-bid-to-stop-probe-of-alleged-comments-to-reporter--92147054.html

We found Doug McMurdo's story an interesting read, as it involves Elizabeth Crum, editor of Chuck Muth's Nevada News Bureau.

Anyway, it just goes to show that when a candidate's actions get into constitutional grounds, the RJ gets interested, even if it means the Republican candidate for attorney general is being investigated by the state bar for his conduct.

**

The RJ loves the Arizona immigration law. http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/illegal-to-be-illegal-92163274.html

And so does its publisher, the Complete Arizonan. http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/sherm/Do_your_sworn_duty_Mr_President.html

Cha Cha Chachas.

If you ever wanted a case study in why the Review-Journal's reporting leaves so much to be desired, there was a great head's up match Sunday.

In one corner came Laura Myers with a story long on political wind that told us nothing about John Chachas other than the fact that he's from Ely, makes his home on Wall Street and is very, very busy.

"John Chachas is a man in a hurry," Myers writes in the lede. ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

There's no scene setting. There's no policy. There's not even the simplistic info that matters in a GOP primary these days -- that Chachas is the only candidate who hasn't signed the Taxpayer Pledge. http://www.lvrj.com/news/millionaire-chachas-returns-to-nevada-to-join-crowded-gop-field-92037269.html

We do get plenty of lines about polling and ad strategy and the other candidates.

In the other corner, weighing in at half the verbiage, is a fine piece of journalism that not only sets scenes and describes the true character of Chachas, it gets in a Matt Taibbi line fit for Discovery Channel late night and talks about why Chachas' policy proposals seem out of touch in a primary and a general. Kudos to Coolican for an easy read that actually told me something about the candidate besides the fact that he's busy. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/25/perspective-wall-street/

Beyond the actual story being told in words, you'll also find Sam Morris' excellent photography in the Sun, complete with a perfect shot of Chachas taping a dollar to the ceiling of the Flying Pig Bar-B-Q in Winnemucca.

Kevin Cannon in the RJ has some nice scene shots of Chachas in Ely. Too bad Myers never gets us there.

**

Speaking of Myers.

Whenever our sister org is part of a news story, we really have insight into the RJ's reporting.

On Friday afternoon ProgressNow Nevada issued a press release announcing the launch of its second Chicken Sue Lowden video, the first having gone viral and seen by millions. This sometimes is a political news story. And it's a story that has been covered deeply by all Nevada news outlets (print and broadcast. North and South) with one exception -- the RJ.

So it was really no surprise that Myers, covering the GOP Senate debate in Reno, missed are story.

We had staff in Reno to cover the debate as well. But ours donned a chicken suit and danced outside waving to those who came to see the debate.

Not exactly a large protest, but a meaningful one that we hoped would keep Chicken Sue in the news.

Myers reported Saturday that the Democratic Party had protesters (plural).

After a lengthy and odd e-mail exchange we won't share here, Myers ran a correction Sunday.

"A story in Saturday's paper said the Democratic Party sent a man dressed in a chicken suit to protest at the candidates debate in Reno. The protester was hired by ProgressNow, according to Erin Neff, the group's executive director."

We know they don't often correct corrections. But they got our name wrong. And they sure wrote that correct weird. The "protester was hired" implies that said protester was only paid to do this stunt.

He happens to also be responsible for the aforemnetioned chicken video and gets a nice salary and good benes to boot. At any rate, chalk up another correction for Myers.

**

We must give props to the accurate portrayal of the Clark County Democratic convention in Sunday's Review-Journal.

Kristi Jourdan did her penance being stuck at the daylong event and capturing the essence quite nicely. Glad to see such nice attention to aforementioned sister org's political buttons. http://www.lvrj.com/news/democrats--poke-fun-at-lowden-92037344.html

**

I cannot close this post without paying tribute to Warren Bates, an assistant city editor at the Review-Journal who always offered a keen eye that helped stories move where they needed to go without losing their voice and purpose.

Bates always seemed to prefer Rhyolite and Kelso to Bonanza and MLK. He preferred the phone and e-mail to hulking over a reporter's desk. And if you did happen by his cubicle, it was always strewn with money coming out of his wallet and pictures of the desert he loved.

Bates was a writer's editor, fair to purpose and permissable. He helped guide some of my lengthy Sunday pieces and projects into readable stories and always double-checked the more inane political quotes I got when I a political reporter from 2003 to 2005. "He said that?" was a constant double-check.

While I spend most of my time harassing the Review-Journal, it is not done to impugn the good journalism that still somehow occasionally escapes that hole.  And when it did in recent years, it was often because Bates' hands were on it. http://www.lvrj.com/news/journalist-dies-in-desert-he-loved-92032684.html

Today we look at a story the RJ isn't covering.

Funny how when Sherm Frederick gets on Fox News with a fabricated story it makes the RJ's front page, but when their beloved GOP Senate front-runner goes viral in a negative light, there's not a peep.

In case you somehow just got Internet service in time to read this and you have no cable TV, there's been a little shake-up in the Nevada Senate race.

On April 6, Sue Lowden made some idiotic statements about bartering for health care during a meet-and-greet in Mesquite. They were captured on video by a Democratic operative. The Dems then had lots of fun with farm animals. The RJ even did a short item in the political notebook about Phoebe Sweet bringing a goat to Lowden HQ.

But on Tuesday the real story began. Lowden defended her original statement and elaborated on Nevada Newsmakers about just how simple it would be to "bring a chicken to the doctor" to pay for health care. And she insisted she was "not backing down from that system."

So, our sister org, ProgressNow Nevada, figured the only way to match that insanity is with some dancing chickens. http://www.progressnownevada.org/page/content/videos

The dancing chickens went viral Wednesday, hitting a news cycle that now has stretched three full days with no response from the Lowden camp.

And when I say viral I mean the video is embedded everywhere, it's been seen by hundreds of thousands of people. Lowden's comments Tuesday have also generated considerable news coverage.

Nevada newspapers, including the Nevada Appeal, the Las Vegas Sun, and the Reno Gazette-Journal, have all written about how the Lowden story has gone viral. Conservative bloggers are fretting about the lack of adequate response by the Lowden camp.

RGJ -- http://www.rgj.com/article/20100422/NEWS19/100422059

Appeal -- http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20100423/NEWS/100429815/1070&ParentProfile=1058

Sun, where it's vying for most read and most discussed -- http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/22/blogosphere-all-tizzy-over-bartering-health-care-i/

Ralston's column -- http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/23/lowdens-bartergate-keeps-clucking/

Nationally, this story has been in the New York Times, Newsweek, GQ, Washington Post, on numerous cable news programs both on and off MSNBC. Rachel Maddow played the dancing chickens. It's everywhere. Just Google Sue Lowden. You don't even need the word chicken. It's been attached.

This story is everywhere.

Except in Nevada's largest newspaper.

Which begs the question. Why?

We think it's because they have put all their eggs in Lowden's basket, and now they fear the hen has gone to the funny farm.

**

Some corrections today, too.

The RJ confuses its small European countries.

"A story in Sunday's Living section about Clinics in Schools incorrectly listed clinic director Dr. Noah Kohn as half Dutch. He is Danish."

Now if we were really conspiratorial, we'd think the RJ screwed that up because the good doctor is married to Nevada's Democratic National Committeewoman. But we don't fret about black helicopters or vapor trails the way the RJ's readers do.

The feature by Sonja Padgett was nice. But, and this goes to the sheer unassuming sweet nature of Dr. Kohn, there's no mention of his recent trip to Haiti. And the fact that Dr. Kohn went there just to help, with literally MREs in his backpack, speaks greater volume than any of Padgett's words.

Still, we're glad the RJ found a good story.

The other correction..

"A caption accompanying a photograph and story in Thursday's Review-Journal about Queen Elizabeth II's 84th birthday celebration contained an incorrect date. The photo was taken Feb. 12, 1927. The queen was born April 21, 1926."

What is it with Europe today?

We'll have to give that correction to the Unidentified Copy Editor in the tally.

About 6,000 to 8,000 people, mostly from out-of-state, came to Searchlight on March 27 to kick off the Tea Party Express national bus tour and to bash Sen. Harry Reid.

About 6,000 to 8,000 people, many from out-of-state, came to downtown Las Vegas on April 3 to urge passage of comprehensive immigration reform. Reid spoke at this event.

Do you think the two got the same coverage in the RJ?

Hah.

Searchlight got a massive photo on the front page on March 28 and a double-truck (that's two whole pages free of ads) for photos and stories. By our count, at least five staffers manned Searchlight for the RJ. By our count, three manned the event right downtown Saturday.

You want to talk fairness; there is none. The RJ put a small photo of the immigration rally on its front page Sunday. Then the story claims, with no attribution, that 3,500 people attended the Saturday rally.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/thousands-rally-for-immigration-reform--reid-vows-issue-will-be-top-priority-for-congress-90542014.html

Having covered much bigger rallies in my career as a journalist, I have a pretty good internal gauge for crowd size.

And, having attended both the Searchlight event and the downtown immigration reform rally, I can assure you the size of the crowds were very comparable.

Kristi Jourdan and Antonio Planas made a point in their Sunday article to put out claims by rally organizers that closer to 10,000 people attended Saturday.

The RJ clearly wanted to paint the pro-immigration reform rally as something small. It wasn't. Not by any stretch.

The reporters who covered the Searchlight event instantly put the size of that crowd at 10,000. Organizers from the stage of that event told the crowd there were 20,000 right now and 10,000 more stuck in traffic. Complete and utter fantasy.

Huge crowd sizes are hard to pin down with precise accuracy. But there's a huge difference between 3,5000 and 10,000. And there's a huge difference in the way the RJ covers a pro-Reid event and a bash-Reid event.

The RJ ran a 4,000 word story and many more in the  in advance of the Tea Party event. It ran one small piece, inside, in advance of the immigration rally.

What's more the RJ had the audacity to Flash, breaking news, Saturday, telling its e-service subscribers that the immigration crowd was from Arizona and California.

FLASH
"Rally for America" event brings supporters from California and
Arizona http://erj.reviewjournal.com/ct.jsp?uz2812989Biz9418602
The "Rally for America" event held to bring attention to comprehensive
immigration reform kicked off at noon Saturday with about 1,000
attendees, many of whom traveled from other states such as California
and Arizona.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/-rally-for-america--event-brings-supporters-from-california-and-arizona-90526974.html<http://erj.reviewjournal.com/ct.jsp?uz2812989Biz9418602>

There was no similar Flash in Searchlight. And the evidence there was monstrous. There was an entire booth devoted to California ballot initiatives. Nevada candidates working the crowd found a Nevadan about one in ten times.

Organizers in Searchlight with Nevada voter registration forms found no takers while we watched.

Once again, when it comes to the RJ's fairness, there is none.

I could go out and ask 230 Republicans what they think of this site and many of them would tell me they don't have enough information to answer.

But when the RJ asks a whopping 230 Republicans whether they like Sandoval or Gibbons in the GOP gubernatorial primary, it's apparently worthy of pronouncing Sandoval the primary winner. http://www.lvrj.com/news/poll-reveals-sandoval-pulling-away--90463659.html

The dirty little secret in that Ben Spillman story?

If you consider the margin of error in a sample size of 230, there hasn't been a doubling of Sandoval's lead over Gibbons. Sandoval was up seven points in the last poll the RJ did. He's up 14 points now. The margin of error is at least six, maybe higher for such a small sample.

So, could it be there's no change in the race?

Yes, it could be.

But that's not what the headline says: "Nevada's Governor's Race: Poll Reveals Sandoval Running Away."

**

There's another blaring headline in the CD3 race: "Titus vs. Heck: Republican Leads House Race."

This yarn, by Laura Myers, http://www.lvrj.com/news/republican-leads-house-race-90559869.html fails to present the truth of the poll.

With a sample size of 300 and a margin of error of six, Heck doesn't necessarily lead the House race.

In fact, it's quite possible this very poll shows Titus in the lead.

There's no truth to Myers' reporting that Heck has pulled ahead. Just as there's no truth to headline.

The RJ can absolutely use this poll data to show results, but the results it hypes just aren't contained within the poll.

Not only is there little transparency with respect to the Mason-Dixon Polling & Research data, there's complete and utter spin.

**

We've saved the best for last. Top-of-the-fold in the Sunday Bash Reid edition we highlight in the article April 12, 2010. http://www.lvjournalreview.com/component/content/article/41-homepage-highlights/240-april-12-2010

This is what happens when you buy your polls on the cheap and in bulk. You get sloppy 230 or 300 sample sizes with massive margins of error.

At least Myers now has "proof" to declare Sue Lowden the front-runner. It's her paper's own version of the truth.

We'll wait for the election. Thank you very much.

Jon Ralston tweeted about the RJ's poll in a series of increasingly pointed comments ending with this: "Papers should not poll on races unless do it right. Results played up can greatly influence race, strategies, fundraising. Thus endeth rant."

We don't think Ralston was just ranting. We happen to agree. Papers should poll on races. Should do it right. Should leave influence to candidates and campaigns.

**

All in all, the entire April cut-rate Mason-Dixon poll is flawed.

The RJ spun the results into headlines that aren't even proven out by the poll.

They did this with issues, too. We previously talked about the Yucca Mountain poll question.

How about Monday's mining tax question. The RJ asked a question about a tax that isn't the subject of the current ballot initiative progressives are attempting to qualify for the ballot.

And apparently it also asked about the specific ballot initiative, but it only told us that it asked. It didn't tell us what the results were. Maybe that's because the results are really conclusive. http://www.lvrj.com/news/poll--mining-tax-increase-supported-90595749.html

**

At this point, the RJ may as well register as a PAC, what with all the in-kind donations it's making to Lowden, Sandoval and Heck and to the candidates' positions on Yucca Mountain and health care.

Now we're back on the shoddy work by Ben Spillman. But it could have been any of the reporters, given the shoddy poll questions; the cheap methods of polling and the lack of justifiable truths in the paper.