STL Post-Dispatch: MUST maintain "a reliably Democratic or liberal view of issues"

[Mr. Kotter]

The paper has been sold, but the contracts insists that they remain a lap-dog for liberalism. Wow. ROFL

You gotta hand it to them; at least they are open and honest about their the leftwing bias they take....too bad the vast majority of other "mainstream media" outlets aren't as honest.


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000920570


In Unusual Agreement, 'Post-Dispatch' Will Remain Liberal Under Lee

By Mark Fitzgerald

Published: May 13, 2005 3:10 PM ET

CHICAGO When Lee Enterprises Inc. agreed to purchase Pulitzer Inc. for $1.46 billion, it also agreed that the flagship St. Louis Post-Dispatch will keep its longstanding liberal editorial slant for at least the next five years, according to the purchase agreement mailed to Pulitzer shareholders Friday.

"For a period of at least five years following the Effective Time, Parent (Lee Enterprises) will cause the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to maintain its current name and editorial page platform statement and to maintain its news and editorial headquarters in the City of St. Louis, Missouri," the agreement states.

The Post-Dispatch platform statement, adopted in 1911, includes the pledge that the newspaper "will always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty."

Over the years, the paper's editorials have taken a reliably Democratic or liberal view of issues, positions some worried would change under Lee's ownership.

Lee had previously told employees that it has "has always been cautious about making changes to longstanding editorial positions of the newspaper." In a question-and-answer sheet distributed soon after the January announcement of the purchase, Lee said it lets "local publishers and editors ... decide what positions are best for their communities."

Putting a condition like that in the actual purchase agreement, however, is unusual, said one broker, who demanded anonymity. "First off, why would they be worried about Lee taking the paper out of St. Louis?" the broker said. "But the editorial viewpoint, I think that's been mentioned in some of the deals we've done...but it is not typical at all."

The agreement, included in proxy materials mailed to shareholders for a special June 3 meeting to approve the purchase by Lee, also provides that Pulitzer will have a say in the appointment of an new editor if Post-Dispatch Editor Ellen Soeteber "is replaced within five years following the Effective Time, whether by reason of her resignation or removal or for any other reason." Lee, the agreement states, "will not appoint or allow to be appointed a new editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch without the prior consultation" with a person designated by Pulitzer.

The proxy materials also state that Pulitzer expects that Lee will continue to employ the Post-Dispatch's publisher and president, Terrence C.Z. Egger, who is also a Pulitzer senior vice president. Also staying, Pulitzer said, is Matthew G. Kraner, the newspaper's general manager and a Pulitzer vice president.

Pulitzer President and CEO Robert C. Woodworth will be "terminated," the proxy materials say, though he may also be retained as a consultant. Pulitzer said Woodworth will be paid $8,804,132 in severance payment.

The formal vote on Lee's all-cash $64 per share purchase will be held at 9 a.m. June 3 at the New York Palace Hotel in New York City.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Fitzgerald (mfitzgerald@editorandpublisher.com) is E&P's editor-at-large.

[mlyonsd]

Dang it, and here I was starting to believe some on the planet that swear there is no liberal media.

[headsnap]

Dang it, and here I was starting to believe some on the planet that swear there is no liberal media.
that's just the editorial page, we all know that bias doesn't seep into the news pages.

[Mr. Kotter]

that's just the editorial page, we all know that bias doesn't seep into the news pages.

Bias is evident most clearly on the OpEd page of course. However, if one thinks that bias doesn't creep into "reporting" one is kidding themselves. It comes across most clearly in "selection of stories," language used, and so-called "investigative stories. Yes, ratings are important and sensationalized journalism is definitely what sells...but in the end, the personal philosophical bias of journalists invariably creeps through.

FTR, the same sort of bias, but in the opposite direction (conservative bias) is evident on Wall Street, in banking, and in financial services. Conservatives are drawn to that sector, just as liberals are drawn to journalism, teaching, and nursing for example. That is probably maddening to the left. If "ratings" moderate journalist's ideology, then "profits" probably moderate Wall Street's bias I guess...at least to some extent.

To be fair, there are conservative outlets: the Washington Times, the WSJ, and a few others. The real problem is a considerable majority of the so-called "mainstream" press is well left of center, but won't admit it. And if they do, they maintain the charade of "we can still report objectively."

Average Americans are oblivious to the extent of the bias; that's what makes it so insidious.

[headsnap]

Bias is evident most clearly on the OpEd page of course. However, if one thinks that bias doesn't creep into "reporting" one is kidding themselves. It comes across most clearly in "selection of stories," language used, and so-called "investigative stories. Yes, ratings are important and sensationalized journalism is definitely what sells...but in the end, the personal philosophical bias of journalists invariably creeps through.

FTR, the same sort of bias, but in the opposite direction (conservative bias) is evident on Wall Street, in banking, and in financial services. Conservatives are drawn to that sector, just as liberals are drawn to journalism, teaching, and nursing for example. That is probably maddening to the left. If "ratings" moderate journalist's ideology, then "profits" probably moderate Wall Street's bias I guess...at least to some extent.

To be fair, there are conservative outlets: the Washington Times, the WSJ, and a few others. The real problem is a considerable majority of the so-called "mainstream" press is well left of center, but won't admit it. And if they do, they maintain the charade of "we can still report objectively."

Average Americans are oblivious to the bias; that's what makes it so insidious.

I was being sarcastic.

[Mr. Kotter]

I was being sarcastic.

Sorry; I'll adjust my meat...er, meter. :p

[Reaper16]

Like this was a surprise to anyone. It's always, historically, been a Democratic paper.

[Mr. Kotter]

Like this was a surprise to anyone. It's always, historically, been a Democratic paper.

Like most major city newspapers; it's just strange to see one admit and be "open" about their bias... :hmmm:

[Pitt Gorilla]

Bias is evident most clearly on the OpEd page of course. However, if one thinks that bias doesn't creep into "reporting" one is kidding themselves. It comes across most clearly in "selection of stories," language used, and so-called "investigative stories. Yes, ratings are important and sensationalized journalism is definitely what sells...but in the end, the personal philosophical bias of journalists invariably creeps through.

FTR, the same sort of bias, but in the opposite direction (conservative bias) is evident on Wall Street, in banking, and in financial services. Conservatives are drawn to that sector, just as liberals are drawn to journalism, teaching, and nursing for example. That is probably maddening to the left. If "ratings" moderate journalist's ideology, then "profits" probably moderate Wall Street's bias I guess...at least to some extent.

To be fair, there are conservative outlets: the Washington Times, the WSJ, and a few others. The real problem is a considerable majority of the so-called "mainstream" press is well left of center, but won't admit it. And if they do, they maintain the charade of "we can still report objectively."

Average Americans are oblivious to the extent of the bias; that's what makes it so insidious.
Every piece of reporting has a bias; there is no such thing as a "lack of bias" or "presenting all sides." :shake:

[Mr. Kotter]

Every piece of reporting has a bias; there is no such thing as a "lack of bias" or "presenting all sides." :shake:

I agree. My problem is many reporters CLAIM to be "objective." And people in the media claims there is no left wing/right wing bias.

I just wish it were, overall.....more balanced than it is--both each outlet, and as an "industry."

Seems we're pretty close on this one. :hmmm:

[Rausch]

I don't read it so I don't care. It's their right to be liberal if they choose...

[Taco John]

I am positive that all media has bias. I'm also positive that all people who complain about it are whiney bitches.

[Metrolike]

I'm still waiting for FOX News to admit their bias. All media is liberal. :rolleyes: