The St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently fired one of its prominent columnists, Sylvester Brown. Why? Here's all you'll find even if you carefully scour the Post-Dispatch: A one-paragraph "Note" that Sylvester Brown acted unethically and that he deserved to be gone. But isn't it a big news story whenever the only daily newspaper serving a major metropolitan area fires one of its columnists for a purported isolated ethics infraction? Doesn't it deserve more coverage than a one-paragraph "Note to Readers"? Isn't this story news? What about when the columnist (who wrote three full columns per week) disputes the Post-Dispatch version of the facts? Isn't that news? You won't read about both sides of this dispute in the Post-Dispatch (though you can read about it here). What about the fact that Brown often criticized the Mayor of St. Louis coupled with the fact that the Mayor is on the paper's "Advisory Board?" Isn't that news? Should a newspaper ever have politicians on its "Advisory Board"? Isn't that issue big news? I decided to put out my own "edition" of the St. Louis Daily newspaper. I called it the St. Louis Post-Disgrace. Click on it to see the "paper" full screen." It contains the headlines that illustrate various aspects of the Sylvester Brown story that the Post-Dispatch failed to cover. I'll be waiting and watching to see whether the Post-Dispatch ever advises its readers any of these issues.