Decades of Shared Printing Come to a Close (Image Credits: Unsplash)
Las Vegas – The Las Vegas Review-Journal’s decision to stop printing the Las Vegas Sun as a daily insert marked the end of a decades-long partnership under a joint operating agreement. Readers expressed outrage in letters to the editor, with many vowing to cancel their subscriptions to the larger paper. A counter-letter dismissed such reactions as overblown panic, highlighting shifting content in the Sun and easy online access to similar material.[1][2]
Decades of Shared Printing Come to a Close
Courts ruled twice that continuing the arrangement would violate antitrust laws, prompting the Review-Journal to cease operations. The joint operating agreement, rare in modern media, had required the Review-Journal to print and distribute the Sun as an insert while sharing profits. This setup sustained the smaller, editorially distinct publication for years.[3]
The Sun, known for its progressive stance, relied on this model amid declining print revenues industry-wide. Federal judges issued temporary orders to maintain printing, but legal battles ultimately favored dissolution. The Review-Journal explained the move in an editorial, citing compliance with judicial decisions.[4]
Subscription Threats Flood Letters Pages
Upset readers flooded the Review-Journal’s letters section with complaints. They argued the absence of the Sun diminished editorial diversity in their daily delivery. Threats to cancel long-held subscriptions underscored attachment to the combined product.[1]
Supporters of the Sun viewed the insert as essential for balanced local coverage. The paper’s shift to digital-only distribution amplified concerns about access for print loyalists. This backlash reflected broader tensions in a city dominated by one major daily newspaper.
Longtime Subscriber Fires Back
Peter D. Kinsley, a Las Vegas resident and 20-year Review-Journal subscriber, pushed back in a pointed letter published April 11. He described fellow letter writers as “Chicken Littles,” mocking their subscription cancellations over the missing insert. Kinsley noted the Sun often featured articles sourced from outlets like The New York Times and Bloomberg News, readily available online for free.[1]
Kinsley once appreciated select Sun pieces for varied opinions. However, he claimed readability declined after Donald Trump’s re-election, with content devolving into repetitive criticism on a single topic. His letter urged readers seeking such material to bypass the Review-Journal altogether.
Legal Roots of the Newspaper Rift
The dispute traced back to antitrust litigation between the papers and their owners. The Review-Journal, owned by the family of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, sought to end profit-sharing terms deemed unfavorable. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the Sun’s appeal in February, paving the way for the printing halt.[5]
- Courts declared continued printing unlawful under antitrust rules.
- Sun transitioned to online publication, citing a “new stage” in the battle.
- Review-Journal emphasized judicial compliance in its announcement.
- Readers debated the impact on local news pluralism.
- Joint agreements like this have dwindled nationwide.
Industry observers watched closely as Las Vegas lost its last print rivalry. The Sun vowed to persist digitally, but print enthusiasts mourned the change.
Key Takeaways
- Review-Journal halted Sun inserts following court rulings on antitrust concerns.
- Readers split between cancellation threats and defenses of the decision.
- Sun content drew criticism for reliance on national sources and perceived bias.
The saga exposed fractures in local media amid digital shifts and ownership clashes. As Las Vegas navigates this new landscape, questions linger about sustaining diverse voices. What do you think about the end of the Sun insert – loss or progress? Tell us in the comments.
