Back in November, a reader brought to my office spreadsheets breaking down the columnists, editorial cartoons, and Associated Press news stories in every edition of The News between Sept. 23 and Nov. 14, which he considered irrefutable proof of The News’ bias against President Donald Trump.

It took me a lot of stolen time over the last several weeks, but I’ve finally run the numbers.

The reader was incorrect — though I did find room for improvement.

First, let’s dispense quickly with the idea that the AP’s coverage is biased.

We’ve AP run stories about Trump’s accomplishments (positive jobs reports, military successes, and finalized trade deals), but the best way to gauge the fairness of a newspaper is not by counting positive versus negative stories about a particular politician, but looking at how it covers politicians from opposite political parties.

Yes, we carry stories about Trump’s troubles, but also those of his opponents. On Nov. 2, for example, we ran a front-page story pointing out the flawed logic of Democrat Elizabeth Warren’s vow that her Medicare for All plan would not raise middle-class taxes. On Dec. 5, we ran a story breaking down the many weaknesses in Democrat Kamala Harris’s campaign that led her to exit the race.

You’ll never hear me say we shouldn’t run more of those stories, but space is finite in print, and we have to prioritize. When the president faces impeachment for only the fourth time in U.S. history, that is historic. It would be a dereliction of my duty not to run those stories.

A spot-check of The News’ archives show we’ve held that standard for Democratic presidents, as well.

∫ Beginning Jan. 22, 1998, when the first revelations about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski were made public, The News ran a front-page story every day the rest of the month, nine stories in eight days.

∫ Throughout Clinton’s impeachment in December 1998, The News ran 20 front-page stories in 17 days.

In June 2013, when Edward Snowden revealed President Barack Obama’s widespread collection of Americans’ cell phone data, the first story was pushed to 2A (which would not have been my decision), but The News ran seven front-page stories on the scandal the rest of that month.

Meanwhile, my review of Commentary pages from Sept. 23 to the end of November found:

∫ 20% of columns and 41% of cartoons were either anti-Trump or pro-Democrat

∫ 13% of columns and 41% of cartoons were either pro-Trump or anti-Democrat

∫ 12% of columns and 1% of cartoons were conservative, but did not directly address Trump or Democrats

∫ 6% of columns and 3% of cartoons were liberal, but did not directly address Trump or Democrats

∫ The biggest chunk of columns, 46%, were local, apolitical, or a balanced analysis of the news of the day. About 14% of cartoons were apolitical.

I think the reader misinterpreted a number of the opinion pieces.

For example, he counted all of Froma Harrop’s columns as liberal or anti-Trump, but her Oct. 23 column criticized Democrats for overplaying identity politics. He categorized most of Walter E. Williams’ columns as neutral, but try to find a progressive who agrees with the Williams’ theme that racial equity efforts actually hurt people of color.

The reader marked both editorial cartoons on Oct. 11 as anti-Trump, but the larger cartoon that day depicts a little boy asking his mother, “Don’t you worry that withholding cookies until I clean up my room might constitute an illicit quid-pro-quo?” I think the artist intended that cartoon to call Democrats’ impeachment push petty and childish.

While we run more conservative than liberal columns, we do run more anti-Trump than pro-Trump columns, largely because most of our liberal columnists attack Trump, while many of our conservative columnists avoid writing about him at all (a problem for newspapers nationwide, according to a 2016 Washington Post story).

The problem is especially acute on our Saturday Commentary pages, where a large volume of letters to the editor sometimes force cartoons and syndicated columnists off the page, leaving only the anti-Trump Andrew Heller.

We don’t want to be that lopsided on our most-read paper of the week, so we’ve decided to shuffle some things around:

Starting today, Doug Pugh, a fan-favorite local columnist whose writing rarely strays into politics, will replace Heller on Saturdays. Heller, a Michigan writer, will replace Diane Dimond on Mondays, where we’ve typically had only nationally syndicated opinions.

Taking Pugh’s usual Tuesday spot will be Patrick Buchanan, a syndicated and openly pro-Trump writer.

We’re not perfect, but we are deliberate about telling stories and sharing opinions from across the diverse spectrum that is this country.

That’s the way we’ve always been, and the way we’ll always be.