The Inquirer gets (another) F in objectivity

This won’t surprise some of you, because in the past I have mentioned the Inquirer’s Cyclops coverage of selected topics.

By Cyclops, I mean only one eye is open.

This past Sunday, the paper had a Page One story headlined: “Trump’s threat has migrants, advocates on edge.”

It sounds a little nefarious. Like Trump is targeting people. He is. Illegal migrants whose presence violates U.S. law.

Spoiler alert: The story was 45 paragraphs long. It quoted 11 pro illegal migrant people, sources or think tanks. (For going on 20 years, the Mainstream Media has banned the word “illegal” in connection with migrants on the bewildering notion that it is somehow unfair or unkind to people who are engaging in illegal acts.) 

The story’s headline carried a sense that something terrible was going to happen to “migrants.” That is incorrect. Something terrible might happen to illegal migrants. People here legally have nothing to worry about.

[To be scrupulously fair, Trump has mentioned revoking the status of people like Haitians, here legally, under a policy called “temporary protected status.” Also, most asylum seekers are not here illegally, not exactly, but opponents say they should have been forced to wait outside the U.S. for their claims to be heard by an immigration judge.]

—-

In the Inquirer’s 45 paragraphs, there was not a single person, think tank or Trump supporter speaking in favor of deportation, which staff writer Jeff Gammage admitted was entirely legal. Not one word in 45 paragraphs.

It is a basic element of news reporting that both sides must be represented for fairness. Or sometimes more than two. It’s called objectivity.

And no one can argue there isn’t another legitimate point of view, not when Gammage admits that deportation is favored by a majority of Americans. 

He couldn’t find a single person to quote? Someone from ICE? Border czar Tom Homan? A Trump spokesman?

It is just shoddy, biased, and unprofessional, and this is not an isolated case.

The Inquirer often omits opinions contrary to its pro-illegal stance. In the past, I have reported that opposing points of view are also routinely suppressed in coverage of bicycling issues, and the soda tax, along with immigration. The omissions are so routine they can’t be explained as oversight.

How can it be anything other than deliberate?

I sent emails early Tuesday morning to Inquirer editor Gabe Escobar and reporter Gammage, politely asking them to explain the complete absence of an opposing point of view.

No response 12 hours later as I finished this column.

It says a lot about an organization that is both biased and arrogant. Objectivity and transparency are for the other guy.

It’s not like Gammage can’t do the research. His story is filled with facts, figures, stats, most often used to support the unspoken opinion that mass deportations are a bad thing. 

They may be, and I published my doubts that it can be accomplished. https://stubykofsky.com/how-can-trump-make-mass-deportation-work/ 

But good or bad is not the issue. This is a serious matter of public policy and both sides must be represented. The Inquirer failed to do so.

Gammage reports about 11 million people, 3.3% of the U.S. population, “have no authority to be here.” And 2.3 million crossed the Southern border “without legal status” and were released in 2023 and early 2024. That’s about as close as the Inquirer will get to “illegal.” 

Gammage has a think tank director talk about mass arrests at schools, work places, and health care facilities “to which Americans are unaccustomed.”

All this would cost $88 billion a year, plus “ancillary costs” bringing a 10-year total to $967.9 billion, which is a remarkably precise estimate. And much more. 

Get the picture? It would cost too much. It would take too long. It would upset some people. That’s fine for an editorial, but not for a news story.

Gammage and the Inquirer paint an unremitting, bleak picture of what would happen if the U.S. government enforces the law. Not a single quote from someone in law enforcement challenging the numbers, or saying whatever the cost, it is worth it to stop the tidal wave of illegals, and have airtight borders.

But he does offer quotes from illegals, some of whom fear deportation, such as 24-year-old E, who came here from Ecuador on a visa and decided to stay when it expired. Illegally.

“They are not going to ask you, ‘Are you a good person? Are you a criminal?,’” Gammage quotes E as saying.

“They’re going to do what they’re going to do.”

That’s because, E, the majority of Americans believe good people don’t break our law.

After you are deported, wait a little while and apply for permission to return — legally.

But if you are legal, the Inquirer won’t care about you..