Conservatives have alleged for years that the media is slanted in favor of Democrats, a charge that is normally met with scorn and eye rolls from the elitist left. But the Democratic National Committee emails exposed by WikiLeaks have proven that the DNC did in fact collude with the media. Here are five emails showing that this happened.

1. Politico's Kenneth Vogel, the epitome of journalistic slime, sent a copy of a story to the DNC before he sent it to his editors. Vogel sent the full story on April 30 under the subject line: "per agreement ... any thoughts appreciated." After receiving the story, which was negative toward Hillary Clinton's fundraising, DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach wrote to communications director Luis Miranda: "Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it. Let me know if you see anything that's missing and I'll push back."

The day before, Paustenbach sent other DNC staffers Vogel's questions to formulate pushback to Vogel's story.

Politico's spokesman, Brad Dayspring, wrote to The Huffington Post in an email: "Politico’s policy is to not share editorial content pre-publication except as approved by editors. In this case the reporter was attempting to check some very technical language and figures involving the DNC’s joint fundraising agreement with the Clinton campaign. Checking the relevant passages for accuracy was responsible and consistent with our standards; Sharing the full piece was a mistake and not consistent with our policies."

"There were no substantive changes to the piece and in fact the final story was blasted out by the both RNC and the [Bernie] Sanders campaign, and prompted Politifact to revise its rating on the issue in question," Dayspring added.

As Business Insider writes, "sending an advanced copy of a story to a subject represents a break from typical journalistic ethics." If Vogel truly had questions about "technical terms" then he should have asked the DNC about the terms in question rather than send them the whole story.

Vogel's Twitter account has been silent since Friday, when the leaked emails were released. That's probably because his mentions are filled with people furious at his partisan hackery.

2. The Washington Post and the DNC may have hosted a joint fundraiser.

The subject line of the email is "WaPo Party." Anu Rangappa, a senior DNC adviser, wrote to DNC national fundraiser director Jordan Kaplan on September 22, 2015, "They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party."

"Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it," Kaplan wrote back.

Given the Post's tendency to endorse Democrats, holding a fundraiser with the DNC would not be a surprising development. It's also worth noting that a separate email Miranda wrote that The Washington Post's Greg Sargent might be willing to "play ball" in "writing up something positive."

3. Disgraced former DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz called MSNBC over Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski's criticisms of her. Back in May, Wasserman Schultz was sent a story highlighting Brzezinski's calls for Wasserman Schultz to "step down."

"This is the LAST straw," Wasserman Schultz fumed. "Please call Phil a Griffin. This is outrageous. She needs to apologize."

Miranda wrote back, "Since you already went to Chuck I’ll wait for his response."

"I think we need to speak to both of them. I've been talking to Phil about this since our breakfast," Wasserman Schultz responded.

"Chuck" is Meet the Press host Chuck Todd; Wasserman Schultz emailed him "Chuck, this must stop" with regard to Brzezinksi's comments. Todd, whose wife works for a leftist political consulting firm, happily obliged Wasserman Schultz's request for a phone call to discuss the matter.

The Morning Joe team finds the whole thing to be hilarious.

4. The DNC also leaked negative information on Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to The Wall Street Journal. Miranda sent reporter Laura Meckler a letter from the Sanders campaign to the DNC whining about how "almost all of his nominees to the party’s platform and rules committees" were rejected and wrote to her, "You didn’t get this from me."

Miranda later "pressured Meckler to dismiss the Sanders campaign’s objections," according to the New York Post:

“The only reason the Sanders camp even sent that letter is that [Democratic Party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] was courteous enough to reach out to give both camps representation,” he wrote.

“But the appointments . . . are at the chair’s discretion.”

5. The DNC screened an op-ed written by CNN contributor Maria Cardona blasting Sanders fans for their behavior at the Nevada Democratic state party convention before it was published. Cardona sent a draft of the column to the DNC and wrote: "I want to make sure it is not too heavy-handed. Please let me know asap! Thanks!!"

Miranda approved but told Cardona the "Clinton campaign would probably ask you not to place it."

The Washington Post's Erik Wemple explains the problem with this:

Even so, there’s a brand promise inherent in CNN, as in any other legitimate news organization. When it presents an op-ed to the public, there’s a built-in presumption that this piece of journalism comes off the keyboard of the writer and is amended by the professional editors of CNN. In this case, it appears to have been edited by partisan activists as well. That means that the product is not, in fact, an op-ed, as it’s categorized. It’s an op-propaganda-ed. In the past, this blog has come out in support of sharing pre-publication text with subjects of stories, for the strict purpose of fact-checking. Even though the exchanges in the chain show Cardona, indeed, clarifying some points with the DNC, consider that she was pre-clearing an essay with partisan officials who appeared to tilt toward Clinton.

Think about this proposition: If CNN’s editorial gatekeepers had been forced to tell the truth and add another line of italicized disclosure — “This piece has been edited by partisan officials with the DNC” — would they have published it?

But what Wemple doesn't put together is that the DNC's screening of the op-ed is symptomatic of an overarching problem: the media's reporting is essentially Democrat propaganda. This is why most Americans distrust the media.