Inquirer scoreboard: Fails on objectivity, again

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.