Thanks for the info.

The other day I followed a link on the URBAN ST. LOUIS site to an Argus story, which was my first introduction to the paper and to the fact that there's a second black paper in St. Louis, in addition to The St. Louis American.

Do these two papers speak to two different segments of the black community? Is there geographic or philosophical split? I've read The St. Louis American in newsprint, but I've read The Argus only online.

Any thoughts? Many thanks.

[Posted by Dan Icolari on Sat., Jan 15, 2005 at 3:21 PM]

Eddie Hasan bought the Argus from Eugene Mitchell in late 2003.

An article in the October 2004 issue of the St. Louis Journalism Review summed up the paper like this: "Years after losing its place as the preeminent African-American newspaper in St. Louis, and after a period when it could not afford to do any serious reporting, the Argus can now be counted on for true news coverage. But unlike its glory days, its coverage is far from comprehensive."

Hasan has increased the press run from less than 3,000 to nearly 15,000; his goal is to print 30,000. The St. Louis American prints 70,000 copies.

[Posted by Brian Marston on Mon., Jan 17, 2005 at 8:04 PM]

Thanks, Brian.

[Posted by Dan Icolari on Mon., Jan 17, 2005 at 8:08 PM]

The St. Louis American is also largely as conservative as its publisher, Donald Suggs, is. It has been relentlessly critical of grassroots critics of the current Schoool Board, for instance, despite the fact that most of those critics are African-American and that the school board majority is highly unpopular in the African-American world.

The Argus isn't aligned with the establishment. French is well-connected but did run on a slate for the school bopard in 2003 that opposed the victorious slate assembled by Mayor Francis Slay. The Argus is clearly interested in criticizing established power through its reporting, while The American isn't.

[Posted by Michael on Tue., Jan 18, 2005 at 4:54 PM]

Thanks for your comment, Michael. I'll have to follow The Argus more closely.

My first encounter with The St. Louis American was via an editorial I respected a lot--one that urged people not to be satisfied with Bush's appointment of a black right-winger to head the already enfeebled Civil Rights Commission; to focus on the ideas and positions of the appointee, not his complexion. It was a call for poliical maturity and a welcome one, I thought.

But I will keep your comment in mind as I follow both papers--at least as represented on their Web sites.

[Posted by Dan Icolari on Mon., Jan 24, 2005 at 9:52 PM]