Las Vegas newspaper shills big time for its owner’s stadium proposal

It just doesn’t get any more blatant than this.

The lede story in the Sunday Las Vegas newspaper is a 1,600-word interview with the paper’s owner, Sheldon Adelson, shilling his stadium proposal.

In it Adelson claims this is all for the public’s benefit. Why, it is like charity, like the millions he donates to support drug abuse treatment and research. He is taking his own money right out of his own rather deep pockets. Feel the warmth. Feel the love.

The story says his Las Vegas Sands Corp. board of directors turned down his proposal to fund a 65,000-seat domed football stadium near the Strip to house the Oakland Raiders, UNLV football, soccer, concerts, etc.

So he’s willing to spend his own money to get the dome built — at least $650 million. And because the stadium’s $1.9-billion financing plan calls for the use of $750 million in hotel room tax money, Adelson said he won’t receive any return on his personal contribution,” the story tells us. Another $500 million is supposed to come from the Raiders and the National Football League.

Pay no attention to the fact he wants to fill hotel rooms with stadium visitors. Pay no attention to the fact the other project competing for that room tax money is an expansion of the publicly owner convention center, which competes with his privately owned Sands Expo.

At one point he inadvertently gave away why he now wants the stadium to be publicly owned.

“The amount of money that can be made by this stadium is so small that we [Las Vegas Sands], as the largest gaming operator in the world, make that same amount of money in one or two days, maybe three sometimes,” Adelson is quoted as saying.

So, dump the risk that it will actually lose money onto the taxpayers, too. That’s the ticket. Stick the suckers coming and going.

Rendering of proposed stadium (R-J file)

6 comments on “Las Vegas newspaper shills big time for its owner’s stadium proposal

  1. Bruce Feher says:

    If you agree that there should be no public funds used for this stadium, please sign and share our petition;
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/900/946/876/fund-it-yourselves/#updated

  2. Connie Foust says:

    I wish the LVRJ was a real paper and not just a place to push agendas that suit the owner. We cancelled our subscription. I have very little faith in any written media anymore. And forget about network media and Fox News, they are in it for ratings nothing more. I signed the petition above and encourage others to do the same.

  3. Patrick says:

    No question Sheldon is using the RJ as his shill.

    Can anyone explain how different in kind, this is from the Stevens Group’s use of the RJ?

    I mean, for years, while controlling payday lenders, they propagandized about how “good” these shisters are. And, while they were heavily involved in “energy” I dont remember any articles (and certainly no editorials) that condemned their dirty energy interests but I remember plenty of “news” stories, and even editorials which spoke favorable or those interests and against anyone or anything that could have negatively affected those interests.

    Yes, Sheldon is a menace, and maybe even worse (gulp) than Stevens Group, but this is what happens when capitalism meets truth.

  4. A.D. Hopkins says:

    Patrick, whatever Stevens’ interests may have been, nobody told me, an investigative reporter, that I could not write stories unfavorable to those interests, or even what most of those interests were, lest it affect my choice of stories. Nor was I so discouraged at four of the other five daily newspapers for which I worked during my career. The editorial pages might or might not have carried water for the specific interests of owners, but they were more likely advocates of capitalism in general, and the general and specific interests often coincided. These interests do not always coincide with those of the general public, but advocacy of the owner’s interests on the editorial pages is certainly not the same as slanting the
    news columns.

  5. Patrick says:

    A.D. Hopkins:

    I appreciate the reply and the insight!

    Do you recall doing any investigative stories regarding payday lenders or coal miners, or even possibly stories about the impacts coal burning was having on the citizens of the state, that were published at the RJ?

    And although as a longtime reader I remember communicating to the former publisher regularly that the lack of a disclaimer, from Stevens Group, regarding the interests they held, alongside stories where those interests might be relevant, I never got much more than a (paraphrasing here) “GFY”.

    At least, and at most maybe, Sheldon has disclosed his interests.

    In all seriousness though, I do appreciate you replying.

  6. Patrick says:

    One more thing Mr. Hopkins:

    You do agree that the publisher decides which stories are to presented on the news pages right? And that the biases of the publisher, and the interests of those employing his services, affect the choices made regarding which stories to cover, and where that coverage is presented right?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s