KENOSHA, Wis. — Wisconsin Examiner Deputy Editor Erik Gunn (D) is apparently working on another story involving me. I don’t know what the story is, what supposed news event prompted it, or why Gunn remains so interested in me. I asked him. He wouldn’t tell me. On Tuesday, Gunn told me that neither he nor his editor would provide any comment for this story.

That’s their right. It’s also my right to take a closer look at the journalist who is taking a closer look at me.

And after reviewing Gunn’s public social-media activity and years of Wisconsin Examiner coverage, I have reached a pretty simple conclusion: Erik Gunn is a liberal partisan hack activist pretending to be a neutral journalist while working for a publication that advertises itself as “nonpartisan.”

There is an important distinction here. Kenosha County Eye has a bias. I am conservative. My readers know that. I don’t hide it, and I don’t put a “nonpartisan” label on this website and expect readers to pretend they can’t see what’s directly in front of them.

Wisconsin Examiner does.

Its own website describes Wisconsin Examiner as a “nonpartisan, nonprofit news site.”

Then there is Gunn.

Gunn’s Bluesky Feed Tells Readers Plenty

After Elon Musk took over Twitter, which was subsequently renamed X, Bluesky became an increasingly popular alternative, including among liberals who abandoned or reduced their use of Musk’s platform.

Gunn is there now, too. His Bluesky profile identifies him as deputy editor of Wisconsin Examiner. His profile also contains an important disclaimer: “Likes & RTs ≠ endorsements | opinions = mine.”

Fair enough. Those opinions, and the material Gunn chooses to amplify publicly, are precisely what I’m interested in.

A review of Gunn’s recent public Bluesky activity shows what I believe is a remarkably consistent political pattern.

Gunn reposted a post attacking the Trump administration for “prejudice and hate” over restrictions involving federal funding for transgender medical treatment of minors.

He reposted MSNBC host Rachel Maddow promoting a story about white nationalists and the decline of local journalism.

He reposted a post connecting Trump administration cuts to a CDC drowning-prevention program with concerns about increasing child drownings.

He reposted commentary saying people who don’t like being labeled “racist” should “get better beliefs.” In the same stretch of his feed, Gunn reposted another person declaring, “Anyone who’s taken an IQ test knows it’s nonsense as a measure of intelligence. Except racists.”

He reposted NPR coverage about restrictions on student IDs for voting, followed by commentary dismissing the notion that the political left should reconsider “woke” politics.

He reposted a post highlighting research claiming undocumented immigration does not increase crime rates.

He reposted Slate commentary declaring that Wisconsin Republicans had nominated an “election denier” and promoting a story with the headline, “An Extremist Won This Week in Wisconsin. It’s Probably Not the One You’ve Read About.”

He reposted criticism of Trump White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt that said, “You do not, under any circumstances, have to hand it to Karoline Leavitt and her team. JFC.”

And Gunn himself recently wrote that advocating greater emphasis on public-health prevention while spreading distrust of vaccines is like “campaigning for automotive safety and rejecting seatbelts.”

I’m not suggesting that a repost automatically means Gunn personally endorses every word contained in the original post. His own profile expressly says otherwise. But readers are also not required to turn their brains off.

One repost proves almost nothing. Neither do two.

Look at the pattern. Look at the subjects. Look at the political direction of the commentary he repeatedly chooses to amplify.

Then decide for yourself whether you believe you’re looking at the social-media activity of a politically neutral observer.

I know what conclusion I reached.

Kenosha County Eye Doesn’t Pretend To Be Something It Isn’t

I’m conservative.

There. That wasn’t difficult.

Kenosha County Eye has a point of view. Readers who have spent five minutes on this website know it. I don’t believe having a political perspective disqualifies someone from doing journalism. If I did, I’d have to disqualify myself.

The difference is transparency.

There are conservative publications and liberal publications. There are conservative commentators and liberal commentators. Fox News has an obvious ideological bent. CNN has an obvious ideological bent. Most reasonably intelligent news consumers understand that.

The problem isn’t having a perspective.

The problem is pretending you don’t.

I’d have far more respect for Wisconsin Examiner if it simply told readers what it is rather than hiding behind the word “nonpartisan.”

Gunn Has Been Interested In Me For Years

This isn’t my first experience with Gunn or Wisconsin Examiner.

During the 2020 Kenosha riots, Gunn wrote a story headlined, “A ‘call to arms’ that filled Kenosha with combat weapons.”

The Examiner’s description of that story said I was “the man who called gunmen to gather on the streets of Kenosha Tuesday night — culminating in the deaths of two people and an injury to a third.”

Read that construction carefully.

“Culminating in the deaths of two people.”

That is precisely the kind of framing I object to. It connected my call for armed citizens to protect Kenosha businesses during the riots with two people being killed later that night.

I didn’t tell anybody to shoot anybody. I didn’t tell anybody to commit a crime. And the man who actually fired the shots, Kyle Rittenhouse, was later acquitted at trial.

Yet there was Gunn, writing about me.

Years later, Wisconsin Examiner was still describing me as a “self-styled militia organizer.”

Then came my defamation lawsuit.

The Defamation Case And A Headline That Didn’t Tell The Whole Story

Wisconsin Examiner republished Racine County Eye’s coverage of my defamation trial under this headline:

“Jury rejects defamation claim made by Kenosha blogger Kevin Mathewson.”

Its summary said a Kenosha jury determined that comments made about me “did not rise to the level of defamation.”

Another story framed the proceeding this way: “Kenosha jury to decide if allegations of racism damaged Kevin Mathewson’s reputation.” Its accompanying summary said a jury would decide whether “accusations of racism rise to the level of defamation.”

There’s a rather significant problem with leaving readers with that impression.

The racism allegations weren’t what the jury ultimately decided. The judge had disposed of those allegations before the jury deliberated because, in the court’s view, those statements were opinions that could not be proven true or false.

What the jury actually considered included some absolutely outrageous factual statements made about me.

Raymond Roberts had accused me of training my young children, who were approximately seven and eight years old, to be suicide bombers and blow up their school. He accused me of threatening military veterans. He accused me of being involved with the militia plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

The jury unanimously determined those factual statements were false.

Not “mostly true.”

Not “substantially true.”

False.

So why didn’t I receive a monetary award?

The jury seemingly thought Roberts was crazy.

During deliberations, the jurors actually sent a written question to the judge asking, in substance, whether they were supposed to decide based on “Roberts’ truth” or the jury’s “truth.”

Think about that for a moment.

The same jury unanimously determined that Roberts’ factual allegations about me were false, but its question to the judge suggested jurors were wrestling with whether Roberts himself believed the things he was saying.

Ultimately, I wasn’t awarded money. But the part that mattered most to me was answered unequivocally: a unanimous Kenosha County jury determined that Roberts’ outrageous factual allegations about me and my young children were false.

Wisconsin Examiner’s headline?

“Jury rejects defamation claim made by Kenosha blogger Kevin Mathewson.”

Technically, I didn’t prevail on the ultimate defamation claim. But that headline leaves out what I consider the most important finding the jury actually made.

And that’s one hell of a selective way to tell readers what happened.

And Now Gunn Is Back

Now, years later, Gunn is apparently working on something else involving me. Members of the community began contacting me about questions he was asking.

So I contacted Gunn myself.

I wanted to know what story he was working on and, more importantly, why there apparently needed to be another Erik Gunn story about Kevin Mathewson in the first place.

I also did something journalists constantly demand from everybody else: I gave him an opportunity to comment.

I offered Gunn and his editor an opportunity to explain the Examiner’s claim of nonpartisanship, its past coverage of me, and why Gunn is presently gathering information about me.

Gunn responded Tuesday.

Neither he nor his editor would be commenting.

He also didn’t tell me what supposed story about me has him digging around again.

Maybe Gunn has a legitimate story. If he does, write it.

What I find strange is the apparent process of searching for one.

At some point I have to wonder: Erik, what exactly is it about me that fascinates you so much?

Journalist Or Liberal Pundit?

To be clear, I’m not arguing that Erik Gunn isn’t allowed to be liberal.

Quite the opposite.

Be liberal. Be extremely liberal if that’s what you believe.

Repost Rachel Maddow. Criticize Trump. Defend progressive policies. Talk about racism, immigration, transgender policy, voting laws, vaccines and whatever else you want.

That’s America.

But don’t insult readers’ intelligence.

When the deputy editor of a publication that advertises itself as “nonpartisan” publicly maintains a social-media feed repeatedly amplifying unmistakably left-of-center political commentary, readers are entitled to consider that when evaluating journalism produced under his name.

And when that same journalist has repeatedly written about a conservative local journalist, including coverage I believe has been unfairly framed, readers are entitled to ask whether political worldview influences which stories get pursued, how they’re framed, and which facts receive emphasis.

Apparently, after all these years, Kevin Mathewson remains a subject Erik Gunn finds worthy of investigation.

I still don’t know why.

I asked.

He wouldn’t tell me.

That’s the difference between Erik Gunn and me.

I tell my readers what I am.

He works for a publication that tells its readers what it supposedly isn’t.