A few quick thoughts on the Los Angeles Times’ story on the new arrangement between the Las Vegas Sun and the Review-Journal, which was published today. (If you haven’t already read it, you’re clearly not a member of the local media. You can read it out here if you’re so inclined.

• “Some observers,” writes the Times’ James Rainey, “believe that to increase its credibility, the Sun must do more to assure its coverage appears independent of the Greenspun family’s many economic interests.”

While that’s true, the real damage to the Sun’s credibility comes because it’s seen as an arm of the Greenspun family’s many economic interests. Independence is a great long-term goal, but not shilling for family businesses would be a near-term benefit to readers.

• “The paper has gotten into the habit of notifying readers when it covers Greenspun holdings, which include housing developments, publishing and casinos,” Rainey adds.

Not quite. The Sun sometimes discloses. But as we at Various Things & Stuff have documented here in recent weeks, there are many front-page stories that don’t alert readers that they’re delving into thinly disguised “advertorial.”

Take the Sun’s recent report on Station Casinos’ annual report (using a headline taken directly from Station Casinos’ annual report). Although the Greenspuns are in business with Station in the Green Valley Ranch property, there was no disclosure. And in stories related to golf course mogul Bill Walters there is often no disclosure. (Sun Editor Brian Greenspun’s column taking a shot at the R-J’s John L. Smith is another good example of the lack of disclosure, although Greenspun and the Sun did disclose the relationship in front-page coverage of the Walters deal Feb. 19.)

• “The Sun said it based its conclusions on an analysis by an independent firm of the deal between the city and Bill Walters, a Greenspun friend and onetime business partner,” Rainey writes. As far as we know, the business relationship between Walters and Greenspun is ongoing, but that’s not what’s missing here.

The fact is, the Sun commissioned the independent report, heralded its highly questionable conclusions on its front page and then distributed copies to the Las Vegas City Council. In this regard, the paper was behaving more like a developer arguing a case than a newspaper trying to get to the truth, which it missed by several hundred kilometers, by the way.

• Rainey quotes Greenspun thusly: “They [the R-J] care more about making money than they do about producing a great newspaper that’s in the community interest.”

But the Sun isn’t a non-profit, no matter how many in-kind contributions it gives to Walters. It’s a business, too. And using your newspaper to help your other business interests get publicity is certainly not in the community interest. At the end of the day, Greenspun cares most about making money, too.

Unfortunately, Greenspun isn’t wrong in his criticism, nor should it be limited to the R-J. All newspapers, with rare exception, seem to place profits above the community interest these days. An editor of ours once told us that journalism was a business, but one unlike any other. It’s also a calling, and a trust. And when moneymaking takes the top position, journalism cannot help but suffer.

• “There is a chance here to building something that doesn’t exist anywhere in American journalism. We have been freed from some news-gathering obligations, and we are trying to add context and meaning, do more enterprise reporting and elevate the writing.” Or so says ex-Timesman Drex Heikes, in Rainey’s piece.

He’s right: There’s a chance to do something unique and perhaps even great at the Sun. And some strides have been made. But if the paper’s demons continue to shout down its better angels (as they did in the execrable Walters independent study story) that chance will never blossom into reality.

People may not believe us when we say we’re rooting for the Sun to be all it can be, but we are. Our criticism of that paper shouldn’t be read as praise-by-inversion of the R-J, which has its own problems. (A political bias seeping into news coverage, for example.) But we are journalists first, and foremost, and the good of the profession is our highest interest. When we criticize, it’s because our life calling has been injured. And those injuries are inflicted by both sides in Nevada’s newspaper wars.

• P.S. If we’re not mistaken, we’d like to believe that we were the “one local commentator” who proffered A.J. Liebling’s famous line about news agency mergers “like a canary merges with a cat.” We love that line, and recall mentioning it during our interview with Rainey. Long live Liebling!

• P.P.S. We don’t believe there’s such a word as “impactful,” although Greenspun uses it in one of his quotes. Maybe it’s a new one.

Full disclosure: The author worked at the Las Vegas Sun from 1993 to 1997. CityLife is owned by the Stephens Media Group, which also owns the Review-Journal and is partners with the Sun in a joint-operating agreement.