What Does It Take To Prove Liberal Media Bias? Two Email Accounts and Ten Minutes.

It doesn’t take much to prove that the media is biased in favor 
of liberals. All you need is two email accounts and ten minutes.

Quick background: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is Missouri’s 
biggest newspaper. Predictably, it is packed with liberals. 
Liberal reporters. Liberal columnists. Liberal editors. The 
place is teeming with bias.

Not that they’d ever admit it. Ask the editors if their personal 
politics influence their paper’s coverage, and they’ll clutch 
their pearls in shock. But get them talking about President 
Trump or Governor Greitens or Republicans in general, and there 
won’t be enough oxygen for all their criticisms.

But they don’t have to admit it. We can prove it. And it turns 
out, that’s surprisingly easy.

The experiment
The set-up was simple: two “lawyers” would weigh in on the 
recent indictment of Missouri’s Republican Governor Eric 
Greitens. Each would pitch an op-ed to the editorial page 
editor, Tod Robberson ([email protected] and 
@trobberson on Twitter).

To make it a fair test, we controlled for variables:

Both pitches were about the same length, with similar subject 
lines and roughly the same content.
The names — “Tom” and “Brad” — were suitably generic.
One pitch arrived on a Thursday afternoon; the other on a Friday 
afternoon.
Neither one included a finished piece, but simply a description 
of a hypothetical op-ed.
In both pitches, the author included his credentials, his take 
on the matter, and the appropriate stroking of the journalistic 
ego.
In other words, both pitches sound like the kind of thing that 
arrive in a newsroom inboxes every day. Take a look:

Liberal Tom’s pitch:

<https://miro.medium.com/max/640/1*EoeVTKg6_dzng8DKRPVnng.png>

Conservative Brad’s pitch:

<https://miro.medium.com/max/640/1*JLDaUtB1UmVjW4R3UcmTGg.png>

The only meaningful difference in the pitches: one piece argued 
against the Republican, and one piece was for him.

The Result
Guess which piece got a response in 22 minutes? Liberal Tom, of 
course. Here’s Tod’s reply:

<https://miro.medium.com/max/640/1*wsLHNLv6SCl00wcaCYNQLw.png>

And guess which pitch hasn’t been responded to in over two 
weeks? Sorry Conservative Brad.

There you have it. Editor Tod Robberson could find no room for a 
pro-Republican op-ed he’d never read from a lawyer he’d never 
heard of. But it took him only 22 minutes — on an early Friday 
evening no less! — to secure the anti-Republican piece he’d 
never read from a different lawyer he’d never heard of.

Sorry to burst your lefty bubble, Tod: neither “Tom” nor “Brad” 
are real. They do, however, reflect the views of real readers of 
your paper. And you showed what you think of those readers: 
you’re willing to give the views of Liberal Tom space in your 
pages, but you don’t offer Conservative Brad even the courtesy 
of a response.

Need more evidence?
Does one experiment with two faux pitches prove the lefty 
leanings of St. Louis’ hometown paper? It doesn’t need to. It’s 
just another data point for how far the St. Louis Post-Dispatch 
is in the tank for one political party.

Take a look at this story from Joel Currier, part of the 
coverage of the trial itself. Now, if you only caught the 
headline, you’d think this story is all about the fact that the 
private investigator hired to investigate Greitens was under FBI 
investigation himself:

<https://miro.medium.com/max/640/1*ES11yfSidJrRZbXkW8rLdg.png>

That’s an interesting story, and it casts doubt on the Circuit 
Attorney Kim Gardner’s decision to hire that investigator in the 
first place. (And to his credit, Currier at least published a 
piece that questioned the Circuit Attorney’s methods, which is 
more than can be said for his colleagues.)

Here’s the only problem: the real bombshell within this piece is 
buried. The real story is that the St. Louis Police Chief — yes, 
that’s right, the head of all police officers in the city, a cop 
with over three decades of experience in law enforcement — had 
grown frustrated with the Circuit Attorney’s conduct. So 
frustrated, in fact, that he told a reporter that she ought to 
explain how she’s gone about her investigation. That juicy 
tidbit makes an appearance around 800 words into the piece:

<https://miro.medium.com/max/640/1*b69LizfnxL48P2wF3UC2yA.png>

Woah. To borrow a Biden-ism, that’s a big f-in deal. It’s not 
everyday that a prosecutor and a police chief spar in public, 
especially over something as significant as the investigation of 
a Governor. You’d think that would be the headline, or even the 
subject of a second, separate piece. The police chief’s 
comments, after all, could stand alone. It makes you wonder why 
something so consequential was left as a side dish.

Wait, easy answer: Currier’s comrades at the Post-Dispatch 
couldn’t stomach the idea of a story that helped the Governor’s 
case. Thus, the nugget about the St. Louis police chief was 
buried, because inconvenient facts that help a Republican must 
be covered up.

The upshot
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editors will have a dozen responses 
to why they didn’t get back to Brad but did get back to Tom, or 
why they buried the story of a police chief questioning the 
integrity of the investigation into the Governor.

The real explanation, we suspect, is the simplest: they just 
plain don’t like conservatives, Republicans, President Trump, 
the Governor, and anyone who disagrees with the Post-Dispatch 
editorial team’s preferred political views, and they will shape 
their coverage to fit those preferences.

This won’t surprise anyone who pays close attention to the media 
in general or the media in Missouri in particular. You need only 
look at the Twitter accounts of the Post-Dispatch’s editors and 
reporters—people like Kurt Erickson, Tony Messenger, and 
Christopher Ave—to see where the paper’s staff stand politically.

Still, we shouldn’t simply brush this sort of thing aside or 
treat political bias among journalists as table stakes. Biased 
reporting and editing should be brought to light. And it’s 
important for newsrooms to reckon with it, especially at the 
state and local level.

Let’s be honest: Political bias in the national media is, at 
this point, a given. It’s a feature, not a bug. Most consumers 
who watch MSNBC or Fox know the dish they’re getting served—and 
they love every bite. But for some reason, we ignore bias in our 
neighborhood papers, even though it’s often more obvious and 
flagrant. Many people just assume that because it’s a local 
paper covering local issues, it’s got to be objective and fair.

There are plenty of smart people in Missouri — including die-
hard conservatives and long-time Republicans — who still believe 
the St. Louis Post-Dispatch calls it as they see it. It’s why 
certain GOP politicians still fret about the paper’s criticism 
and fall all over themselves to earn its praise (see: Hawley, 
Josh). Some on the right even refer to it as a “paper of record.”

Ha. News flash: it isn’t, and it hasn’t been for a long time. In 
2018, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is simply an organ of the 
state Democratic Party. Think of it less like a newspaper and 
more like Missouri’s version of Pravda, the official mouthpiece 
of the Community Party.

<https://miro.medium.com/max/640/1*CyGu7gfRZw0lrg15y7nKNg.jpeg>

What can you do?
As the old saying goes, you can complain, or you can do 
something. So if you’re a conservative or a Republican in 
Missouri, or simply someone who is bothered by biased coverage, 
what can you do? We’d offer three concrete actions:

1) Cancel your subscription

We bet more than a few people subscribe to the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch the way a lot of people subscribe to their neighborhood 
gym: you made the decision to join a long time ago, and you’ve 
gone to the gym maybe a handful of times since. You ought to 
cancel that membership, but you always feel guilty. Maybe I’ll 
go run on the treadmill tomorrow. Yeah, right.

If you’re one of those long-standing subscribers to the St. 
Louis Post-Dispatch, now is the time to cut the cord. You have 
permission, and you have a good reason. Several, in fact. You’ll 
save money. You’ll put a dent in their bottom line. And if 
enough people do the same thing, you may even force some overdue 
changes at the newspaper.

The subscription line can be reached at: 314–340–8888 or by 
email at [email protected]. Don’t feel bad: remember, a 
digital-only subscription to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch costs 
$9.99 per month and Netflix costs $10.99. And for that extra 
dollar, you get to watch Stranger Things, which is just leagues 
better than anything Tony Messenger has ever written. Ever.

2) Block their website

Go ahead and block the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website from your 
computer. Think about it: they depend on those clicks and views. 
In other words, they make money each and every time you visit 
their site.

Why do this? Because you may find yourself staring at a 
tantalizing St. Louis Post-Dispatch headline on Twitter and feel 
compelled to click. The only way to hold yourself back is to 
block the site. It’s the only effective way to make sure that 
you’re not contributing to their bottom line.

So go ahead and block the URL (stltoday.com). There’s several 
handy tools that can serve this purpose. If you use Google 
Chrome, just type in “website blocker” in Google and find 
yourself a Chrome extension. Here’s a good one. Then just enter 
in “stltoday.com,” and voila, no more press releases from 
Democrats — er, reporting and writing from journalists.

3) Let the owners of the paper know how you feel.

Coverage can change. Editorial boards can wake up to bias. It 
doesn’t happen often, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. 
Newspapers respond to their readers, and like any other product 
in our market economy, when demand changes, products change.

So contact the people who write the checks: the executives of 
Lee Enterprises, the company that owns the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch (who, btw, seem to be doing well for themselves even as 
the paper they own hasn’t). Tell them that you think they should 
hire people who disagree with the Democratic Party line, or at 
least consider taking positions that aren’t so predictably 
liberal.

Here are their names and email addresses:

Kevin Mowbray — President and CEO of Lee Enterprises 
([email protected])

Mary Junck — Chairwoman of the Board of Directors of Lee 
Enterprises ([email protected])

Greg Veon—Vice President, Publishing ([email protected])

Tell them how you feel. I’m sure they’ll appreciate the reader 
feedback.

Signing off,

Your friendly neighborhood media watchdogs

For people wondering where the byline on this piece comes from, 
it’s a play on the name Roy Temple ([email protected] and 
@roytemple on Twitter).

He’s the former head of Missouri’s Democratic Party. Word on the 
street is he’s been quarter-backing a lot of the anti-Greitens 
stuff. No surprise there. What is surprising is how much the 
media trusts him and how closely they work with him. Apparently, 
him and KMOV’s Lauren Trager have become BFF during this whole 
process, including a lot of time together before the original 
story broke ([email protected] and @LaurenTrager on Twitter).

He fed her a lot of what he had on the Greitens affair, and 
because she has no scruples and her bosses at KMOV don’t either, 
they went ahead and ran the story — a story that, remember, 
every single other outlet in the state had known about for years 
and passed on. What Trager probably tells herself was intrepid 
“investigative reporting” should more accurately be referred to 
as “a PDF of old opposition research.” More on that, and some 
other shady things coming to light about Trager’s work, in our 
next installment.

<https://medium.com/@toyremple/what-does-it-take-to-prove-
liberal-media-bias-two-email-accounts-and-ten-minutes-
f921403c4b1b>