Sun editorial fires blanks at rival and partner

In 1970, Congress exempted newspapers from anti-trust law by passing the Newspaper Preservation Act. The law allowed competing newspapers to enter into joint operating agreements (JOA) to save money and thus maintain “a newspaper press editorially and reportorially independent and competitive in all parts of the United States.”

Las Vegas Sun editorial today

In 1989, the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun entered into such an agreement. Until 2005, the Sun was printed and distributed as an afternoon newspaper. That year the papers restructured the agreement and the Sun has since been printed as a 6- to 10-page insert in the morning paper. That contract expires in 2040.

The Las Vegas JOA is one of three remaining in the country. More than two dozen such agreements have been terminated.

Though the agreement requires both publications to “preserve the high standards of newspaper quality … consistent with United States metropolitan daily newspapers,” the Sun is largely filled with New York Times articles, sometimes several days old, and only publishes local editorials a few days a week.

Which brings us, at last, to today’s topic: a Sun editorial.

That editorial takes to task its business partner and supposed rival for an editorial printed more than a week ago criticizing Minneapolis Public Schools for entering into a teacher contract that states staff reductions will largely exempt minorities.

The morning paper opined, “That’s blatant and intentional racial discrimination.”

The Sun editorial points out that the Minneapolis Public Schools have in the past “engaged in discriminatory practices resulting in white teachers being hired, retained and promoted more often than their nonwhite counterparts.”

The opinion piece goes onto say, “These facts aren’t up for debate. The school district has admitted as much — a fact the Review-Journal’s editorial conveniently forgot to mention.”

If all else fails, read the instructions.

Actually, the R-J opinion plainly states:

The purpose of this policy is “to remedy the continuing effects of past discrimination by the district,” a preamble to those provisions reads.

In other words, the district and union want to address amorphous “past discrimination” by further engaging in actual racial discrimination. That’s ironic coming from activists who say they seek to eliminate racial discrimination.

While the Sun editorial appears to endorse discrimination as a legitimate current tool to fight past discrimination, it conveniently forgets to mention that the other paper’s editorial offered an alternative.

Disparities are inevitable because race isn’t the only factor that influences human outcomes in a free country. Also, individuals have agency. They aren’t widgets whom government planners can direct into certain career fields — based on their skin color, no less.

A more rational approach to staff reductions would be to allow managers to make decisions based on performance and competence regardless of seniority. But acknowledging disparities in talent — through pay or other means — runs counter to organized labor’s efforts to protect and coddle underperformers.

Instead, we get outlandishly discriminatory policies in the name of “equity.”

Now, how about some editorial and reportorial competitiveness between now and 2040?

Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial