The Las Vegas Review-Journal always planned to publish answers from decision-makers about the owner's stadium plan, despite an email that seemed to imply otherwise, an editor said Wednesday.
Managing Editor Glenn Cook was responding to a post in which I pointed out an email from one of his subordinates could be interpreted -- as some inside and outside the newspaper did – as using reporters to poll or even intimidate elected officials.
“We completely deny any allegation that our reporters are collecting information for our owner and not for readers,” Cook wrote in an email five days after I posted Assistant Editor Don Ham’s email. “We completely deny any allegation that we will not publish what our reporters learn about the positions of legislative and County Commission candidates on public funding for a domed football stadium. Your allegations are not only completely false and completely unfounded, but completely stupid.”
(In the interests of transparency, I have taken the liberty of printing an unexpurgated transcript of my exchange with Cook below. In the to and fro, Cook acknowledged that Editor Keith Moyer has threatened to fire anyone found to have leaked the memo to me.)
Three weeks ago, Ham had informed reporters working on an election tab they were adding a “very timely” question about public money for the stadium, which would require legislative or Clark County Commission approval. But he added a strange sentence with one word in all-caps: “This question is NOT going to be added to the question asked of candidates for the online election package, though.”
This seemed to me and many others, including here and here and here, that the information obtained would not be published. Cook said not so:
“Don's reference in the first paragraph to ‘the tab’ is to our print tabloid general election voter guide, which will be included in our Sunday, Oct. 23 edition and posted online,” Cook wrote to me. “For these voter guides, which we have produced for every statewide primary and general election going back decades, reporters interview candidates for a specific office (for example, Assembly District 13) about campaign issues and their backgrounds. The purpose of the section is to provide voters with information that helps them make decisions about whom to support.
“The fact that Don brought up ‘the tab’ indicates to reporters that the question he wants asked is for publication. Nowhere in this email does it say we won't publish what they report, or that we will keep secret what they report, or that reporters are to provide their findings directly to editors but not include the information in the stories they file.”
Cook also brags about already publishing the dissenting view of one – count ‘em – lawmaker on the stadium to show the paper’s fairness, and in a later email mentions Clark County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, whose opposition to the stadium is well known and whose commments were buried in a Sunday Sheldon Adelson interview "story" for “balance,” I suppose.
Even if you give the newspaper the benefit of the doubt here, even if Ham’s request were innocent – or even if he did not know why he was asked to make the assignment – the real issue is this: The paper has forfeited its right to claim innocence or journalism after months of uncritical coverage of Adelson’s proposed stadium through placement and editing of stories that has been well documented. This culminated Sunday with that news release from Adelson masquerading as a story on Page One above the fold in which he was allowed to make several incendiary statements that went unchallenged.
Reporters would rightly believe they are hopelessly compromised in asking politicians about the stadium and those being questioned would be entitled to wonder, as they are reminded who owns the newspaper, what the actual purpose of the query was.
(Remember this was the same organization that earlier this year sent reporters to chronicle the goings on in a courtroom of a judge Adelson considered unfriendly. Benefit of the doubt they do not receive.)
We will know relatively soon if the newspaper actually prints the answers to the stadium question.
Below is my entire back and forth with Cook.
Jon,
The conclusions in your blog post from August 26, 2016 (“RJ editor to reporters: Ask candidates about public stadium funding but not for the newspaper”), presented as fact, have no basis in reality. You deliberately ignored language in the email you obtained to support a wild conspiracy theory that had no corroboration whatsoever.
It goes without saying: We completely deny any allegation that our reporters are collecting information for our owner and not for readers. We completely deny any allegation that we will not publish what our reporters learn about the positions of legislative and County Commission candidates on public funding for a domed football stadium. Your allegations are not only completely false and completely unfounded, but completely stupid. In fact, we already have talked to lawmakers about the prospect of a stadium special session and reported the position of at least one lawmaker who opposes the use of tax dollars for a stadium:
"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."
You still know what a “tab” is, don’t you Jon?
Don's reference in the first paragraph to "the tab" is to our print tabloid general election voter guide, which will be included in our Sunday, Oct. 23 edition and posted online. For these voter guides, which we have produced for every statewide primary and general election going back decades, reporters interview candidates for a specific office (for example, Assembly District 13) about campaign issues and their backgrounds. The purpose of the section is to provide voters with information that helps them make decisions about whom to support.
The fact that Don brought up "the tab" indicates to reporters that the question he wants asked is for publication. Nowhere in this email does it say we won't publish what they report, or that we will keep secret what they report, or that reporters are to provide their findings directly to editors but not include the information in the stories they file.
When Don wrote "This question is NOT going to be added to the question asked of candidates for the online election package, though." he was referring to our online Voter Guide, which is a completely separate product from "the tab." The "online election package" Don was referring to can be found through our home page navigation bar by hovering over the "Election 2016" bar and clicking on "Voter Guide." The direct URL is:
The content under this section is completely different from "the tab" because it is provided by the candidates themselves, not produced by our reporters. For an example, scroll down to Assembly District 13 and click on the link for Paul Anderson. You'll see a 60-second video that we allowed each candidate to film, some personal and professional information, a description of the elected office they're running for, a map of their district, key endorsements, and their responses to three policy/issue questions selected by editors in early spring. In legislative races, we decided to ask candidates about the recreational marijuana initiative, the background check initiative, and about K-12 education. In County Commission races, the questions are “What is the biggest challenge facing Clark County?”; “If elected, what would you do to address that challenge?”; and “The 2017 Legislature is expected to consider one or more proposals to allow municipalities, including counties, to increase property taxes to bring them closer to levels they were at before the Great Recession. Is this a good idea? Why or why not?”
When Don wrote "This question is NOT going to be added to the question asked of candidates for the online election package, though" he was referring to these three questions in our finished online Voter Guide. A lot of work went into creating and coding these pages, then getting digital questionnaires to candidates, then uploading all their responses to these pages. It involved newsroom assistant, web developers, reporters and our data editor. We consider these pages a finished product. These candidate pages have been on our site, unchanged, since well before the June primary election. We decided against adding the stadium question to the pot, background check and K-12 questions asked of legislative candidates, as well as the questions asked of commission candidates because we will report candidate answers on the stadium issue in our print voter guide, which also will appear online. Aka “the tab.”
We expect you to update your blog post with this response, and we expect you to change the headline on your post to something more accurate. You have attributed a statement to an editor that was never made.
Glenn Cook
Managing Editor
Las Vegas Review-Journal
----
ME
Thanks for the note, Glenn.
I concluded nothing. I speculated as to some possibilities for the bizarre email, possibilities those inside your newsroom and outside have also concluded.
Your condescending, threatening and defensive note notwithstanding, please explain this: "You have attributed a statement to an editor that was never made." I never said Don said they wouldn't be published. But nowhere in that email does it say they will be.
What statement? I posted the entire email. There is nothing in that email that indicates the responses would be put in the newspaper. Not one word. Please show me where I am wrong. This is why some reporters wondered what was going on.
Why was this question added? Is it just a coincidence that the answer to this question is one your owner cares most about?
Also, it has been five days since my post without a peep of protest. I gave the author of the memo and your boss a chance to respond. Crickets.
Please explain why your boss is threatening to fire the person who leaked me the email if it is so innocuous. I wait (sic) your replay (sic) on this and more.
JR
P.S. Thank you very much for explaining to me what a tab is. And kudos for running the opinion of ONE (you editors over there apparently like all-caps) against public funding.
----
COOK:
Thanks for the note, Glenn.
I concluded nothing. I speculated as to some possibilities for the bizarre email, possibilities those inside your newsroom and outside have also concluded.
Give me a break. Here's what you wrote:
"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. ... This is a new nadir for the organization."
That's a conclusion if there ever was one.
Your condescending, threatening and defensive note notwithstanding, please explain this: "You have attributed a statement to an editor that was never made." I never said Don said they wouldn't be published. But nowhere in that email does it say they will be. What statement?
Yes, you did, in your headline:
RJ editor to reporters: Ask candidates about public stadium funding but not for the newspaper
Why was this question added? Is it just a coincidence that the answer to this question is one your owner cares most about?
Reporters were told to ask the for their tabloid stories because it is of high public interest and it will be timely for the tab, especially if a special session is called just before or after the election. It is not a coincidence that we're asking reporters to address an important local issue, one that has become a national story.
Also, it has been five days since my post without a peep of protest. I gave the author of the memo and your boss a chance to respond. Crickets.
As you can see from the length of my response, explaining why you're so off base required a lot of detail. We're busy.
Please explain why your boss is threatening to fire the person who leaked me the email if it is so innocuous. I wait your replay on this and more.
Releasing work product, internal communications or proprietary information to a competitor is a fireable offense, not just for any news organization, but for any business.
JR
P.S. Thank you very much for explaining to me what a tab is.
You're welcome. You clearly needed the reminder since you ignored the presence of the word in the email.
And kudos for running the opinion of ONE (you editors over there apparently like all-caps) against public funding.
Don't forget about Chris G.
----
ME
Oh, yes, it's a national story, all right, as is your role in being a propaganda outlet for it.
Reporters were told to ask the for their tabloid stories because it is of high public interest and it will be timely for the tab, especially if a special session is called just before or after the election
Ok. But maybe you can understand why some might interpret differently because of this sentence: "This question is NOT going to be added to the question asked of candidates for the online election package, though."
I am far from the only person who reached that conclusion. Do not forget: I printed the entire email. And it is a FACT that reporters interpreted it that way.
It is a reasonable inference, especially because of your coverage and documented cases of sanitized stories, that you would allow reporters to be used for such a purpose. Your Page One story Sunday, allowing your owner to make several statements without a challenge, only adds fuel to the fire. You have lost all claim to benefit of the doubt.
Once you actually print all of the responses, I will be happy to note it.
In the meantime, I will post your entire emails tomorrow to be completely fair.
----
COOK
Don Ham sends quick notes to reporters all the time. One part of that email that has been lost in all this: "Any questions, see me." There is absolutely nothing to any of your speculation.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal always planned to publish answers from decision-makers about the owner's stadium plan, despite an email that seemed to imply otherwise, an editor said Wednesday.
Managing Editor Glenn Cook was responding to a post in which I pointed out an email from one of his subordinates could be interpreted -- as some inside and outside the newspaper did – as using reporters to poll or even intimidate elected officials.
“We completely deny any allegation that our reporters are collecting information for our owner and not for readers,” Cook wrote in an email five days after I posted Assistant Editor Don Ham’s email. “We completely deny any allegation that we will not publish what our reporters learn about the positions of legislative and County Commission candidates on public funding for a domed football stadium. Your allegations are not only completely false and completely unfounded, but completely stupid.”
(In the interests of transparency, I have taken the liberty of printing an unexpurgated transcript of my exchange with Cook below. In the to and fro, Cook acknowledged that Editor Keith Moyer has threatened to fire anyone found to have leaked the memo to me.)
Three weeks ago, Ham had informed reporters working on an election tab they were adding a “very timely” question about public money for the stadium, which would require legislative or Clark County Commission approval. But he added a strange sentence with one word in all-caps: “This question is NOT going to be added to the question asked of candidates for the online election package, though.”
This seemed to me and many others, including here and here and here, that the information obtained would not be published. Cook said not so:
“Don's reference in the first paragraph to ‘the tab’ is to our print tabloid general election voter guide, which will be included in our Sunday, Oct. 23 edition and posted online,” Cook wrote to me. “For these voter guides, which we have produced for every statewide primary and general election going back decades, reporters interview candidates for a specific office (for example, Assembly District 13) about campaign issues and their backgrounds. The purpose of the section is to provide voters with information that helps them make decisions about whom to support.
“The fact that Don brought up ‘the tab’ indicates to reporters that the question he wants asked is for publication. Nowhere in this email does it say we won't publish what they report, or that we will keep secret what they report, or that reporters are to provide their findings directly to editors but not include the information in the stories they file.”
Cook also brags about already publishing the dissenting view of one – count ‘em – lawmaker on the stadium to show the paper’s fairness, and in a later email mentions Clark County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, whose opposition to the stadium is well known and whose commments were buried in a Sunday Sheldon Adelson interview "story" for “balance,” I suppose.
Even if you give the newspaper the benefit of the doubt here, even if Ham’s request were innocent – or even if he did not know why he was asked to make the assignment – the real issue is this: The paper has forfeited its right to claim innocence or journalism after months of uncritical coverage of Adelson’s proposed stadium through placement and editing of stories that has been well documented. This culminated Sunday with that news release from Adelson masquerading as a story on Page One above the fold in which he was allowed to make several incendiary statements that went unchallenged.
Reporters would rightly believe they are hopelessly compromised in asking politicians about the stadium and those being questioned would be entitled to wonder, as they are reminded who owns the newspaper, what the actual purpose of the query was.
(Remember this was the same organization that earlier this year sent reporters to chronicle the goings on in a courtroom of a judge Adelson considered unfriendly. Benefit of the doubt they do not receive.)
We will know relatively soon if the newspaper actually prints the answers to the stadium question.
Below is my entire back and forth with Cook.
Jon,
The conclusions in your blog post from August 26, 2016 (“RJ editor to reporters: Ask candidates about public stadium funding but not for the newspaper”), presented as fact, have no basis in reality. You deliberately ignored language in the email you obtained to support a wild conspiracy theory that had no corroboration whatsoever.
It goes without saying: We completely deny any allegation that our reporters are collecting information for our owner and not for readers. We completely deny any allegation that we will not publish what our reporters learn about the positions of legislative and County Commission candidates on public funding for a domed football stadium. Your allegations are not only completely false and completely unfounded, but completely stupid. In fact, we already have talked to lawmakers about the prospect of a stadium special session and reported the position of at least one lawmaker who opposes the use of tax dollars for a stadium:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/stadium/no-special-session-yet-las-vegas-stadium-lawmakers-say
For reference, here’s Don Ham’s Aug. 11 email:
"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."
You still know what a “tab” is, don’t you Jon?
Don's reference in the first paragraph to "the tab" is to our print tabloid general election voter guide, which will be included in our Sunday, Oct. 23 edition and posted online. For these voter guides, which we have produced for every statewide primary and general election going back decades, reporters interview candidates for a specific office (for example, Assembly District 13) about campaign issues and their backgrounds. The purpose of the section is to provide voters with information that helps them make decisions about whom to support.
The fact that Don brought up "the tab" indicates to reporters that the question he wants asked is for publication. Nowhere in this email does it say we won't publish what they report, or that we will keep secret what they report, or that reporters are to provide their findings directly to editors but not include the information in the stories they file.
When Don wrote "This question is NOT going to be added to the question asked of candidates for the online election package, though." he was referring to our online Voter Guide, which is a completely separate product from "the tab." The "online election package" Don was referring to can be found through our home page navigation bar by hovering over the "Election 2016" bar and clicking on "Voter Guide." The direct URL is:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/voter-guide-2016
The content under this section is completely different from "the tab" because it is provided by the candidates themselves, not produced by our reporters. For an example, scroll down to Assembly District 13 and click on the link for Paul Anderson. You'll see a 60-second video that we allowed each candidate to film, some personal and professional information, a description of the elected office they're running for, a map of their district, key endorsements, and their responses to three policy/issue questions selected by editors in early spring. In legislative races, we decided to ask candidates about the recreational marijuana initiative, the background check initiative, and about K-12 education. In County Commission races, the questions are “What is the biggest challenge facing Clark County?”; “If elected, what would you do to address that challenge?”; and “The 2017 Legislature is expected to consider one or more proposals to allow municipalities, including counties, to increase property taxes to bring them closer to levels they were at before the Great Recession. Is this a good idea? Why or why not?”
When Don wrote "This question is NOT going to be added to the question asked of candidates for the online election package, though" he was referring to these three questions in our finished online Voter Guide. A lot of work went into creating and coding these pages, then getting digital questionnaires to candidates, then uploading all their responses to these pages. It involved newsroom assistant, web developers, reporters and our data editor. We consider these pages a finished product. These candidate pages have been on our site, unchanged, since well before the June primary election. We decided against adding the stadium question to the pot, background check and K-12 questions asked of legislative candidates, as well as the questions asked of commission candidates because we will report candidate answers on the stadium issue in our print voter guide, which also will appear online. Aka “the tab.”
We expect you to update your blog post with this response, and we expect you to change the headline on your post to something more accurate. You have attributed a statement to an editor that was never made.
Glenn Cook
Managing Editor
Las Vegas Review-Journal
----
ME
Thanks for the note, Glenn.
I concluded nothing. I speculated as to some possibilities for the bizarre email, possibilities those inside your newsroom and outside have also concluded.
Your condescending, threatening and defensive note notwithstanding, please explain this: "You have attributed a statement to an editor that was never made." I never said Don said they wouldn't be published. But nowhere in that email does it say they will be.
What statement? I posted the entire email. There is nothing in that email that indicates the responses would be put in the newspaper. Not one word. Please show me where I am wrong. This is why some reporters wondered what was going on.
Why was this question added? Is it just a coincidence that the answer to this question is one your owner cares most about?
Also, it has been five days since my post without a peep of protest. I gave the author of the memo and your boss a chance to respond. Crickets.
Please explain why your boss is threatening to fire the person who leaked me the email if it is so innocuous. I wait (sic) your replay (sic) on this and more.
JR
P.S. Thank you very much for explaining to me what a tab is. And kudos for running the opinion of ONE (you editors over there apparently like all-caps) against public funding.
----
COOK:
Thanks for the note, Glenn.
I concluded nothing. I speculated as to some possibilities for the bizarre email, possibilities those inside your newsroom and outside have also concluded.
Give me a break. Here's what you wrote:
"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. ... This is a new nadir for the organization."
That's a conclusion if there ever was one.
Your condescending, threatening and defensive note notwithstanding, please explain this: "You have attributed a statement to an editor that was never made." I never said Don said they wouldn't be published. But nowhere in that email does it say they will be. What statement?
Yes, you did, in your headline:
RJ editor to reporters: Ask candidates about public stadium funding but not for the newspaper
Why was this question added? Is it just a coincidence that the answer to this question is one your owner cares most about?
Reporters were told to ask the for their tabloid stories because it is of high public interest and it will be timely for the tab, especially if a special session is called just before or after the election. It is not a coincidence that we're asking reporters to address an important local issue, one that has become a national story.
Also, it has been five days since my post without a peep of protest. I gave the author of the memo and your boss a chance to respond. Crickets.
As you can see from the length of my response, explaining why you're so off base required a lot of detail. We're busy.
Please explain why your boss is threatening to fire the person who leaked me the email if it is so innocuous. I wait your replay on this and more.
Releasing work product, internal communications or proprietary information to a competitor is a fireable offense, not just for any news organization, but for any business.
JR
P.S. Thank you very much for explaining to me what a tab is.
You're welcome. You clearly needed the reminder since you ignored the presence of the word in the email.
And kudos for running the opinion of ONE (you editors over there apparently like all-caps) against public funding.
Don't forget about Chris G.
----
ME
Oh, yes, it's a national story, all right, as is your role in being a propaganda outlet for it.
Reporters were told to ask the for their tabloid stories because it is of high public interest and it will be timely for the tab, especially if a special session is called just before or after the election
Ok. But maybe you can understand why some might interpret differently because of this sentence: "This question is NOT going to be added to the question asked of candidates for the online election package, though."
I am far from the only person who reached that conclusion. Do not forget: I printed the entire email. And it is a FACT that reporters interpreted it that way.
It is a reasonable inference, especially because of your coverage and documented cases of sanitized stories, that you would allow reporters to be used for such a purpose. Your Page One story Sunday, allowing your owner to make several statements without a challenge, only adds fuel to the fire. You have lost all claim to benefit of the doubt.
Once you actually print all of the responses, I will be happy to note it.
In the meantime, I will post your entire emails tomorrow to be completely fair.
----
COOK
Don Ham sends quick notes to reporters all the time. One part of that email that has been lost in all this: "Any questions, see me." There is absolutely nothing to any of your speculation.
Thank you for posting our responses.
Comments: