We’re still mulling this year’s Censor of the Year award — to be announced next week for Darwin Day — and officially the nominating process has closed. However, I’m going to take advantage of my privilege as editor and add one more name: Patrick Anderson at the Argus Leader in South Dakota.

Casey Luskin wrote about him yesterday, “On that South Dakota Academic Freedom Bill, Here’s More Bad Journalism — and Science Censorship — from Patrick Anderson.”

I tweeted Casey’s article to Patrick, and Patrick replied by “favoriting” it. That’s nice, but how does he respond to Casey’s very legitimate complaint:

So the reporter was informed that there are serious scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinian theory — especially as it is taught in textbooks. Yet he makes no mention of any of it. Instead, he tries to rebut me by quoting a teacher who frankly admits her own lack awareness of the relevant data, and who leaves readers with the impression that there are no legitimate scientific criticisms of Darwinian evolution that could possibly be introduced in schools.

This makes Patrick Anderson not only an inaccurate reporter, but a censor. He withholds from readers crucial facts in his possession that are directly relevant to the story.

That’s exactly how media censorship works in the evolution debate. You’re seeing it right here before your very eyes. I’ve seen before, literally hundreds of times.

Any comment? I posed the question to Patrick Anderson.

@ArgusPAnderson What do you say to Casey Luskin, who squarely challenges your reporting’s completeness and accuracy? http://t.co/Y9ZfcX4xCr

— David Klinghoffer (@d_klinghoffer) February 5, 2015

You won’t be surprised to learn I received no reply. Despite working for “South Dakota’s largest newspaper by circulation,” Patrick is a long shot for COTY, admittedly, but you never know.