The end of the JOA between the Review-Journal and the Sun raises a question about what kind of pluralism actually strengthens public discourse.
I prefer that competing viewpoints have a place in the local media landscape. But the Sun did not represent its side of the spectrum as well as it could have. Its content was relentlessly partisan, often relying on syndicated or repurposed material rather than original reporting or analysis. Many Democrats I know evaluate issues on their merits. The Sun rarely did.
More importantly, the structure of the JOA forced the RJ to carry the Sun’s content regardless of quality. That arrangement was justified as protecting diversity of opinion. But in practice it compelled one newspaper to subsidize another. That is not pluralism. It is a form of institutional coercion.
Now that the agreement has ended, perhaps Las Vegas can have a more honest conversation about how to foster genuine editorial diversity — one based on merit, not compulsion.
