|
The Stinky INKY: As The Philadelphia Inquirer Placates Its
Right-Wing Readers, Its Quality Deteriorates
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Walter C. Uhler
I've been reading The Philadelphia Inquirer since I moved into
the Philadelphia region in 1976. For good or bad, it's been my local
paper. And although I've never confused it with the serious national
newspapers—The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor,
and Washington Post—the Inquirer's Sports Page was
what I turned to before anything else. Thus I often read the rest of
the Inquirer, especially it's front-page section, its Op-ed/Commentary
page and its book reviews before turning to the more serious newspapers.
Eventually I commenced writing to and for the Inquirer. My
first letter was published in 1986, my first book review in 1998 and
my first Op-ed in 2000. But by late 2002, due to my allegations about
the Inquirer's slipshod and craven coverage of the Bush administration's
lies and propaganda about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties
to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda (which were used to gain popular support
for the Bush administration's illegal and immoral Hitler-like invasion
of Iraq) a tacit mutual agreement was reached that I would no longer
write for the Inquirer.
My formal estrangement with the Inquirer commenced nearly a year before
my last Op-ed was published there. It occurred as a consequence of my
letter about the deterioration of the Inquirer that was published
in Z Magazine in November 2001. In Z, I wrote about "the
right-wing bias that increasingly sullies the Commentary page"
of the paper. I noted that its editor, John Timpane, had failed to publish
my most recent Op-ed (critical of the Bush administration's unilateralism),
which proved good enough for publication by a conservative, pro-defense
weekly newspaper, Defense News.
I also wrote about how the increasing right-wing shift of the Inquirer
coincided with the general dumbing-down of the newspaper. As examples,
I cited the Inquirer's decision to discontinue its separate
"Books" section, which was dumbed-down as it shrank, as well
as the publication of low quality letters to the editor that never merited
publication, due to their powerful and wide-ranging stupidity.
One such letter, which found its way into the newspaper, made the claim:
"If we test, develop and deploy the system secretly, then we can
have the security of the missile defense without escalating the arms
race." As I responded in Z, "How testing, development,
and deployment could remain secret (under the collective noses of an
inquisitive press, government leakers, competent foreign intelligence
agencies, and sophisticated spy satellites) apparently did not enter
the mind of the writer—or the editors of the newspaper. (Readers merely
need to consider the recent reports of the huge barge being used to
float a large X-band radar to its intended destination, in order to
realize how ridiculous that letter was.)
But, rather than address my criticisms directly, two editors ridiculed
Z Magazine and anyone who would write to or for it. Yet, America's
most brilliant and formidable intellectual, Noam Chomsky, routinely
contributes to Z.
Thus, the rightward drift and accompanying deterioration of the Inquirer
proceeded apace. Now, its Commentary page regularly features Op-eds
by Jonah Goldberg, a syndicated right-wing lightweight with little of
importance to say. And it occasionally carries the slightly more serious
right-wing nonsense written by Mona Charen. Perhaps thoughtful and liberal
Philadelphians should thank God that the Inquirer has spared
them the vile opinions and nostrums of that loud-mouthed, blond-tressed
pinhead, Ann Coulter.
But, even worse, the Commentary page often reprints the syndicated neoconservative
rants of Charles Krauthammer (who writes for, and thus besmirches, the
Washington Post). Readers of Andrew Bacevich's new book, The
New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced By War, will
find that he places much blame on such "neocons" for America's
new militarism.
Moreover, Bacevich believes Krauthammer to be one of the most extreme
of the neocons. Not only has Krauthammer called collective security
a "mirage," he claims that the only "alternative to unipolarity
is chaos." Thus he advocates that the U.S. "unashamedly"
lay down the rules of the world order and then be "prepared to
enforce them." And, thus, he inflames that large section of the
American population that shares his warmongering psychopathy.
Bacevich excoriates The New York Times, Los Angeles Times,
and Washington Post for giving regular foreign policy commentary
(respectively) to these neocons: David Brooks, Max Boot, Krauthammer
and Robert Kagan. According to Bacevich, "as a direct consequence
of this determined rabble-rousing, neocon views about the efficacy of
American military power and the legitimacy of its use gained wide currency."
And thus, by regularly carrying Krauthammer's column without balancing
it with same-day thoughtful commentary to the contrary, the Inquirer's
Commentary page contributed to this national disservice.
Unfortunately, two recent editorial decisions indicate that the right-wing
drift/pandering/dumbing-down has further infiltrated the Inquirer's
newsroom. First, the April 10, 2005 issue of the Inquirer contained
the headline: "Shiites rally in Baghdad: Thousands mark anniversary
of city's fall." To people who had not seen other, more accurate,
descriptions of the gigantic rally the day before, the Inquirer's
headline might leave them with the impression that the Shiites were
celebrating the fall of Saddam Hussein.
In fact, they were. But one only needs to read other headlines about
the rally -- "Demonstrators In Iraq Demand That U.S. Leave"
(by The New York Times), or "Iraqis stage huge anti-US
protest" (the BBC) or "Tens of Thousands of Iraqis Demand
U.S. Withdrawal" (Washington Post) or "Livid Iraq
Protesters Tell U.S. to Get Out" (Los Angeles Times)—to
realize that the Inquirer's headline omitted the most significant
reason for the protest. And although I wrote to the editors to complain
that their omission raised "suspicions of bias, dishonesty or incompetence,"
I received no response from the news gatherers or headline writers.
Equally disturbing, however, was the discovery that the Inquirer
failed to publish significant breaking news reported by its very own
parent organization. On April 15, 2005, Knight Ridder ran the headline:
"Bush administration eliminating 19-year old international terrorism
report." The news report received significant national attention.
The actual report, "Patterns of Global Terrorism," is an updated
version of the 2004 report that, a year ago, required correction because
it undercounted the number of terrorist incidents that occurred in 2003.
Of course, Bush administration officials denied that the undercount
in the 2004 report was intentional. Yet, given that the 175 "significant
" terrorist attacks in 2003 constituted "the highest number
in two decades," the Bush administration could hardly have been
satisfied with a such a high number that suggested the administration's
global war on terrorism was not eliminating terrorism (an impossible
and, thus, stupid goal to begin with), but cultivating it.
Now, the 2005 report states that 625 "significant" attacks
occurred in 2004. Yet, again, the Bush administration wants Americans
to believe that its refusal to release that report (and its decision
to cease issuing such reports) has nothing to do with its empirical
evidence suggesting that Bush's war on terrorism has been a colossal
failure.
It's true that Knight Ridder's Jonathan Landay mentioned some officials
who questioned the methodology behind the count. "But other current
and former officials charged that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's
office ordered 'Patterns of Global Terrorism' eliminated several weeks
ago because the 2004 statistics raise disturbing questions about the
Bush administration's frequent claims of progress in the war against
terrorism."
Yet, The Philadelphia Inquirer failed to publish this article
from its parent company. Why?" Does the Inquirer fear
antagonizing its many conservative readers and faith-based Bush supporters
with actual, but discomfiting, facts? Does it fear retribution by way
of subscription cancellations? Or are the news editors simply biased,
dishonest or incompetent?
Thus: Enquiring minds would like to know Why the Inquirer has deteriorated
so.
Originally posted April 17, 2005 at Walter
C. Uhler.com
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
Walter C. Uhler is an independent scholar and freelance writer whose
work has appeared in The Nation, the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, The San Francisco Chronicle and Philadelphia
Inquirer, among numerous other periodicals. His article, "Democracy
or dominion?" will be republished in Annual Editions: World
Politics 05/06 (McGraw Hill) scheduled for publication in April.
He is President of the Russian-American International Studies Association.
|
