As part of my continuing scoreboard on Inquirer corruption of journalist norms, the Thursday edition carried yet another Open Border editorial mildly disguised as a new story.
The piece runs 23 paragraphs, it quotes four supporters of illegal immigration, although it never ever uses the word “illegal,” and offers not a single quote from any Philadelphian, nor government agency, in opposition to the some 100 protestors asking President Joe Biden “to take apart the nation’s deportation mechanisms.”
If the U.S. has no deportation mechanism, that means anyone who gets here, by whatever means, can stay here. That is Open Borders.
That observation is missing in the story’s 23 paragraphs, along with any mention, from any source, in opposition to illegal immigration, or dismantling immigration enforcement. There is no objectivity, no balance. It amounts to propaganda.
The protestors, needless to say, were disruptive, even while being cheered on by Philadelphia’s useless D.A. Larry “Let ‘em Loose” Krasner, who acts as judge and jury and threatens to arrest ICE agents, rather than illegals. This is the Philadelphia insane asylum.
Just a few days ago, on Dec. 12, I posted a critique of an Inquirer story of 27 paragraphs, but which actually allowed two graphs for the opposition. Well, that was better than none in the current story, which is usually the case with the Inquirer’s one-eye-blind reporting.
If you read the Inquirer’s coverage with even slight attention, you can see in its narrative that the poor illegal immigrants who have come here are the good guys, while those who want to enforce immigration law — such as Homeland Security, which runs ICE — have somehow been transformed into the bad guys. Such is the reverse morality of much of the Left, where empathy is more important than legality.
That kind of thinking has had a long run, but the times have changed, as proven by the election of Donald J. Trump.
A majority of Americans are in favor of mass deportations. I am not for reasons I explained here.
I don’t expect the Inquirer to change its virtue-signaling Open Borders orientation, but I do expect it to behave as if it has journalistic integrity and understands it must tell both sides of the story.
I expect I will be disappointed.
You will be disappointed, sad to say.
The only way to save the Inquirer from themselves, and use Gerry Lenfest’s Foundation subsidy honorably, is to replace all the editors on the masthead, fire their two silly and always wrong headed commentators, replace the wet behind their ears recent hires and get a CEO who is fair, balanced and perhaps ever, worldly.
Same as at NPR, which seems to take pride in telling lies, too.
Everyone must view the video, “The Fall of Minneapolis,” to learn that George Floyd died of the overdose he took of the drugs he had in his pocket; he was not murdered by the police as NPR, two days ago, is still broadcasting. We learn from the video how that trial was completely corrupted by the judge, who ought to be in jail, not the policemen. Please view, The Fall of Minneapolis.”
Per the Inquirer, through its downs and downs (there are no ups) Curly, Moe and Shemp remain in charge. There are NO consequences for failure. It is truly amazing,
You might want to do research of your sources. What makes you so certain that The Fall of Minneapolis is trustworthy? NPR is a reputable news source. The Fall of Mineapolis, whose writer/director is being sued for lible may not be.
Three years before The Fall of Minneapolis came out, former federal and state prosecutor was the first guy I noticed in 2020 who used medical evidence to prove that George Floyd killed himself:
https://spectator.org/george-floyd-death-toxicology-report/
As for NPR as a reputable news source, you must be kidding. That’s the place where editor Terry Samuel, an Inky alum, dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story as “pure distractions” and a “waste of time.”
The author of the American Spectator story was George Parry.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own Facts. According to Media Bias Fact check: : “Overall, we rate the American Spectator Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that consistently favor the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing techniques, a lack of disclosure with funding, and a couple of failed fact checks.”….. Compare with NPR……”Overall, we rate NPR (National Public Radio) Left-Center Biased based on story selection that leans slightly left and High for factual reporting due to thorough sourcing and accurate news reporting.” ….NPR is trustworthy. American Spectator is crap.
Please tell me what exactly Hunter Biden’s laptop proved?
From Wiki : “The American Spectator has been criticized for its “hype and hysteria” and “out-of-control screeds that attack the obvious suspects and lack corroboration”.[3] The radical green organization Greenpeace claims that the magazine is part of a supposed “conservative media network with clear Koch influence [that] serves as a reliable platform for attacks on the scientific consensus of global warming”.[4]
I watched that video today based on your comment. It was eye-opening, to say the very least. Amazing, and terrifying, how much the media manipulates the public. As Eddie Vedder said, “its herd behavior”. Sheep, mostly.
I haven’t read the Inky in a few years, though I’ve been considering subscribing again….Stu, what news sources do you recommend?
I have one comment…. You say, with disdain, “Such is the reverse morality of much of the Left, where empathy is more important than legality.”….. I’m on the Left, and I do believe that sometimes, Empathy IS more important than legality. I’ll not list the examples unless requested.
I subscribe to the print Inky. Online NYTimes, WaPo. My recommendation CNN AND Fox. Yes, FOX! You asked, I answered. I am not interested in your reaction. (ABC just paid $16 million to Trump for defamation.)
Empathy is a WRONG point for determining law. Why? Empathy is subjective, like morality. Law is supposed to be objective. It sometimes fails. IF you believe no person is above the law, that applies to Biden as much as Trump.
Sanctuary Cities have been matched by No Gun Law communities, because that is THEIR view of empathy.
And, when or if, the law is wrong, as it can be, we have mechanisms for fixing them — through the legislature or through the courts. NO individual has the right to break the law or take it into their own hands. That is anarchy and anarchy has NEVER been a successful form of government.
ok thanks for your recommendations.
Stu, I read both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. Sometimes it seems like I’m reading about different countries. That’s ok. I make up my own mind.
The spectator story quoted autopsy results and transcripts of the arrest of Floyd. None of what you have to say addresses the extremely convincing argument made with plenty of facts by Parry, who has run his own blog for years and has quite a record as a prosecutor.
Parry’s theory that Floyd died of an overdose has been totally debunked. His record as a prosecutor has absolutely nothing to do with this case. Floyd had drugs in his system but that was not the cause of death. He was murdered. Full stop. Interesting how you, and many on the Right discredit any media that they don’t agree with. I’m not talking about the Inky. I haven’t commented on that because I don’t know enough about it. Unlike you who sees fit to trash NPR simply because you disagree with their perspective. I’m wondering if you ever actually LISTENED to NPR?
If you love NPR you’ll love the Inquirer. Stay in your safe space.
I suggest an interview with each pro-illegal immigration supporter, at which time an illegal immigrant and family will be assigned to that supporter. It would be fun to see their feet held to the fire, and to see how the Stinquirer covers the story. My Christmas wish.
Perhaps someone should review the provisions of the Lenfest Foundation criteria for supporting the Inquirer. If preservation of quality journalism and integrity in journalism are criteria, frustrated readers might have standing (as the ultimate intended beneficiaries of Lenfest’s largesse) to challenge use of that charitable foundation’s contributions to the Inquirer.
I always wondered how a nonprofit like the Lenfest Foundation could oversee a for-profit business like the Inquirer. Should a nonprofit be issuing candidate endorsements?
Stu, you hear anything about the latest round of buyouts at the Inky, to be followed by possible layoffs? Hopefully Bunchie and Solomon take the buyouts.
Just heard longtime DN photog Steve Falk got let go. Don’t know more, but Solomon is NOT a staffer, so he’s likely safe, especially when his race-conscious opinions are loved by management.