Facts matter: The ‘RN&R’ welcomes a diversity of viewpoints—as long as those viewpoints are grounded in reality

I’ve been asked a lot of questions and gotten a lot of suggestions since the Reno News & Review returned to print.

Will you ever go back to being a weekly? (Alas, no. There are no commercial newspaper printers left in Northern Nevada, making weekly publication cost-prohibitive.)

You should bring back the horoscope! (The horoscope column we ran for a couple of decades is written for a weekly cycle, not a monthly cycle, so it wouldn’t work.)

Since you brought back the Best of Northern Nevada readers’ poll, will you be bringing back the BONN party? (It kills me to say it, but not this year. We’re still getting back on our feet after reviving the paper following the post-pandemic shutdown. That, combined with the fact that this is an election year, means Frank and I lack the bandwidth to put together a Best of Northern Nevada party that’s worthy of the name. It’ll be back next year—I promise.)

However, one question/suggestion has come up more than any other: You shouldn’t be as political as the old RN&R was.

Translation: They did not like the RN&R’s “old” “politics.” To hone that in even further: They thought we were too liberal.

Full disclosure here: I am a pretty liberal person, as are many of the RN&R’s staffers and contributors. That said, I don’t consider the RN&R to be a “liberal” publication. All political viewpoints and opinions are welcome here, as long as they’re based in facts.

Let me repeat that last part: as long as they’re based in facts. The problem is, far too many politicians and their followers these days—most of whom belong to the Republican Party—are choosing to disregard or flat-out deny proven facts.

Here are just a few examples of facts: Man-made climate change is real, and it’s kicking our butts right now. COVID-19 vaccines, while not perfect, saved a whole lot of lives. There is no credible evidence that the 2020 election was anything but fair and legitimate.

All of these statements are verifiably true. The scientific consensus on climate change is overwhelming—and we’re seeing the effects of climate change play out in real-time, with terrible, planet-changing consequences. The statistics on vaccine effectiveness couldn’t be clearer. And despite the best efforts of many—remember that Arizona audit, performed by a group hellbent on finding some shred of evidence of ballot-tampering, that ended up being a complete failure?—each and every indication shows that the 2020 election was fair, honest and legitimate.

If you’re coming to the RN&R with a viewpoint or opinion which I, or Frank, or anyone else involved with the RN&R disagrees with, it’s still welcome here, as long as it’s based in something resembling facts. But if you come to us saying something that’s verifiably, provably false—such as a would-be RenoNR.com commenter who tried to claim the “science” behind climate change is faulty, and that the powers-that-be are simply trying to “use climate change as a way to lock us down and restrict us”—we don’t want you here.

Look at how many people died because they got swept up in vaccine skepticism. Witness the harm being done by forces invested in climate-change denial. And when people like election-denier Jim Marchant have a very real chance of becoming Nevada’s secretary of state—a topic John L. Smith eloquently breaks down here—our state, our institutions and our democracy are in jeopardy.

Facts and dissenting opinions have always, and will always, be welcome in the Reno News & Review. But mistruths and lies have no place here.