Here is a letter to editor that was not printed; similar idea; come to your own conclusions...
because those who might once have been wise, better informed and more knowledgable in the mast head of any newspaper, no longer are wise, knowledgable nor better in formed.
Most are rather dimwitted and yes are probably still employed only because of the several foundation subsidies keeping them off the streets.
"The most remarkable aspect of our editors' endorsement of Kamala to be President is its recitation of the faults of Trump.
Their recitation is the same litany of smears, lies, distortions, hate, raw ignorance, statements snatched out of context that the main media press, of which our beloved Inquirer is a most unwavering and obedient camp follower, have been writing for at least eight years.
Did the wise and worldly masthead members of the Inquirer fall prey to the trap of their own very bad, sophomoric and intentionally wrong reporting to make their endorsement based on so much false information that they have been printing?
Please scroll through the list of hate in their endorsement; is any of it true?
The students of Miami University in Ohio were much wiser in their student newspaper, "The Miami Student," by printing wise and truthful opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates. Fair, honest and mature.
College students, for heaven's sake!! There is hope.
You raise an interesting point. Historically, newspapers chose editorial writers not for their incisive minds but because their legs were shot and they were no longer able to chase police cars and fire trucks. The Washington Post and L.A. Times developed a better system, at least until their new owners intervened.
You might be amused at this email I sent this morning as a response to Jim Heinrich's, of Lenfest Foundation, article praising the Inquirer.
I Differ with your Thought that the Inquirer is at all Fair and anywhere close to being an Arbiter of Unbiased news
Jim,
Gerry must be rolling in his grave with how his support of the Inquirer has led it to become more and more inconsequential, slanted, shallow, sophomoric and provincial every year. Where did its independence and thoughtfulness disappear to?
People interested in pro sports, however, tell me it is a good paper for sports.
You hired E. Hughes as CEO who came in gangbusters declaring that we and our Philadelphia Institutions are all vile and reprehensible racists and her diatribes persisted for weeks.
Where the Hell did she and her cockamamie attitude come from?
(She went to SPS, for heavens sake, and I know they did not brainwash people there like that.)
Why is she still CEO?
You continue to hire and publish Solomon Jones and Will Bunch whose silly off the wall opinions would not be printed in my old college newspaper.
Trudy Rubin, who in spite of being so well traveled and extremely knowledgeable, seems to always draw the wrong conclusions.
She would have been terrific in the Biden administration.
The hiring spree of young minority reporters resulted in naive, gullible and not well written nor well considered articles.
We already have the well respected Philadelphia Tribune. Why try to be just like them?
Last but not least, are the "thinkers" on your Masthead. Who selected such a lightweight, short thinking, can't shoot straight bunch of predictable editors?
Again, I refer you to the immature thinking of the 18-21 year old editors of my college newspaper.
Jim, I wish to politely differ with your glowing assessment of the Inquirer today, as it has become, since Gerry set up his subsidy.
I seek the other independent news sources for factual, thoughtful, wise, even contrarian and mature thinking, which we used to expect from the Inquirer.
Where did it all go?
Has the crutch of the Lenfest subsidy weakened the spine, independence and integrity of the newspaper?
Are the opinion writers and editors still hired there, only there because of the Lenfest subsidy? Who else would hire them!
Should you concentrate your efforts, since the horse has left this barn, simply to be an acclaimed sports paper?
There is something deeply and institutionally wrong at the Inquirer.
Gerry Lenfest meant well, but as I have suggested before, he was a walking poster boy for Julius Rosenwald's famous observation: "It is almost always easier to make a million dollars honestly than to dispose of it wisely.”
Dan, Thanks, great quote and so true.
Gerry clearly and sincerely meant very well.
GAC
Very thoughtful article.
Here is a letter to editor that was not printed; similar idea; come to your own conclusions...
because those who might once have been wise, better informed and more knowledgable in the mast head of any newspaper, no longer are wise, knowledgable nor better in formed.
Most are rather dimwitted and yes are probably still employed only because of the several foundation subsidies keeping them off the streets.
"The most remarkable aspect of our editors' endorsement of Kamala to be President is its recitation of the faults of Trump.
Their recitation is the same litany of smears, lies, distortions, hate, raw ignorance, statements snatched out of context that the main media press, of which our beloved Inquirer is a most unwavering and obedient camp follower, have been writing for at least eight years.
Did the wise and worldly masthead members of the Inquirer fall prey to the trap of their own very bad, sophomoric and intentionally wrong reporting to make their endorsement based on so much false information that they have been printing?
Please scroll through the list of hate in their endorsement; is any of it true?
The students of Miami University in Ohio were much wiser in their student newspaper, "The Miami Student," by printing wise and truthful opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates. Fair, honest and mature.
College students, for heaven's sake!! There is hope.
Gardner A. Cadwalader
Philadelphia
You raise an interesting point. Historically, newspapers chose editorial writers not for their incisive minds but because their legs were shot and they were no longer able to chase police cars and fire trucks. The Washington Post and L.A. Times developed a better system, at least until their new owners intervened.
You might be amused at this email I sent this morning as a response to Jim Heinrich's, of Lenfest Foundation, article praising the Inquirer.
I Differ with your Thought that the Inquirer is at all Fair and anywhere close to being an Arbiter of Unbiased news
Jim,
Gerry must be rolling in his grave with how his support of the Inquirer has led it to become more and more inconsequential, slanted, shallow, sophomoric and provincial every year. Where did its independence and thoughtfulness disappear to?
People interested in pro sports, however, tell me it is a good paper for sports.
You hired E. Hughes as CEO who came in gangbusters declaring that we and our Philadelphia Institutions are all vile and reprehensible racists and her diatribes persisted for weeks.
Where the Hell did she and her cockamamie attitude come from?
(She went to SPS, for heavens sake, and I know they did not brainwash people there like that.)
Why is she still CEO?
You continue to hire and publish Solomon Jones and Will Bunch whose silly off the wall opinions would not be printed in my old college newspaper.
Trudy Rubin, who in spite of being so well traveled and extremely knowledgeable, seems to always draw the wrong conclusions.
She would have been terrific in the Biden administration.
The hiring spree of young minority reporters resulted in naive, gullible and not well written nor well considered articles.
We already have the well respected Philadelphia Tribune. Why try to be just like them?
Last but not least, are the "thinkers" on your Masthead. Who selected such a lightweight, short thinking, can't shoot straight bunch of predictable editors?
Again, I refer you to the immature thinking of the 18-21 year old editors of my college newspaper.
Jim, I wish to politely differ with your glowing assessment of the Inquirer today, as it has become, since Gerry set up his subsidy.
I seek the other independent news sources for factual, thoughtful, wise, even contrarian and mature thinking, which we used to expect from the Inquirer.
Where did it all go?
Has the crutch of the Lenfest subsidy weakened the spine, independence and integrity of the newspaper?
Are the opinion writers and editors still hired there, only there because of the Lenfest subsidy? Who else would hire them!
Should you concentrate your efforts, since the horse has left this barn, simply to be an acclaimed sports paper?
There is something deeply and institutionally wrong at the Inquirer.
All the best,
Gardner A. Cadwalader
Philadelphia
Gerry Lenfest meant well, but as I have suggested before, he was a walking poster boy for Julius Rosenwald's famous observation: "It is almost always easier to make a million dollars honestly than to dispose of it wisely.”