Another rejected Letter – Pantagraph

By:  Diane Benjamin

Actually, the Pantagraph didn’t even acknowledge receiving this one.  The author didn’t give me a name, they go by earlyriser54 here.

From the writer:

This letter was submitted via e-mail on May 24th. Not printed, no confirmation from Pantagraph to verify the author. I made certain that all required information was included, but it was not printed. When I left a voice mail of inquiry my call was not returned.


Ameren Article Deceptive

The article in May 23rd Pantagraph was ironic, hypocritical, and deceitful. In bold print on the front page, quotes “advocates: no benefits for Ameren customers.” It is only on the second page of the article that the advocates are revealed. It is none other than a lobbyist group called National Resource Defense Council. The irony comes in because it is federal regulations forced upon Ameren brought about by pressure from lobbyist groups such as NRDC that are the reason for the need to increase rates to meet new EPA requirements. The deceit comes in because the Pantagraph did not list the source on the front page where the big headline was meant to alarm customers of a rate hike if this bill is passed. The hypocrisy comes about because organizations such as NRDC strongly support the Democratic party. The same Democratic party who relies on support by labor unions, such as Ameren employees. I would like to see more comprehensive reporting by the Pantagraph.




  1. It’s clear why this was rejected little one.

    Do you ever have anything positive to say?

    Sent from my iPhone



    • Do you?


    • Tom, simply posting an unpublished letter to the editor of the Pantagraph on this website is a negative commentary, how? Not responding to communications from subscribers is considered good business practice in your opinion? Perhaps you can enlighten us as to a better way to exchange ideas.


    • Tom you like making negative comments on this site, what if it was decided that your voice and opinion were not worthy of approving? I wish you would stop, but you don’t, but Diane still lets you speak your mind. That is how it is supposed to work.


  2. Tom, suppose you share with me in your infinite wisdom why my letter was rejected. The letter is within the guidelines of Pantagraph protocol. There is nothing in the contents that is not true and anyone with the inclination to search the NRDC website, they can read for themselves that this group is a radical bunch of tree huggers who advocate the elimination of fossil fuel use. It is equally obvious that the Pantagraph in a blatant and deceptive attempt to give credibility to this group. As my letter states the proof of the deception is that the group is not mentioned on the front page of the paper where the article begins. It is only on page 2 and further down the column that the group and their spokesperson is named. It is also obvious Tom as I have said before, you are all for free speech until it comes from someone who oppose the progressive agenda.


  3. Diane, I would just like to thank you for allowing a forum for my letter to be shared. Thank GOD that free speech is still welcomed in some corners of the public arena.


    • Even I have limits. I’m still holding a vulgar comment from a current elected official who didn’t know IP addresses can be traced. Luckily he lost in the primary.



  1. […] Another rejected Letter – Pantagraph […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

. .

wordpress stats plugin
%d bloggers like this: