It seems that the Inquirer is incapable of writing an article in which Donald Trump is mentioned without pointing out that he is a liar.
Interesting that the Inquirer, which purports to report the facts, has begun relying on mind reading. Trump does indeed protest that voter fraud cost him the election. Is he lying or does he really believe that the election was stolen? I don’t know and neither does the Inquirer. Would it be better journalism if the story would say something like “Mr. Trump continues to claim voter fraud even though there is no proof of such”?
Day after day, week after week, year after year the pages of the Inquirer were full of stories putting forth the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory. These articles were written even though there existed absolutely no proof of such a conspiracy. Was the Inquirer lying? Was the newsroom full of liars?
READ MORE — Wally Nunn: Mainstream media only sugarcoats the lie
Perhaps, like Mr. Trump, they wanted to believe it was true. Or perhaps truth did not matter nearly as much as destruction of Trump’s candidacy, followed by the destruction of his presidency.
Let’s give the benefit of the doubt to the Inquirer and presume they actually believed the Russian collusion hoax. Now that there is overwhelming evidence that there was no Trump/Russia conspiracy, only a hoax exposed as a plot by Hillary Clinton with a supporting cast that even included members of the most powerful law enforcement agency in the country, what does the Inquirer think?
I ask what they think, because they have been strangely quiet about the evidence that Trump was never involved in a conspiracy, but that Clinton was. There is more than one way to lie, and apparently the Inquirer has chosen to lie by omission. If a media source finds out that information they have disseminated was false, it behooves them to inform their readers of the truth. If a choice is made to ignore the new information, that is a lie of omission.
Of course, if the collusion story was the only example of the Inquirer’s lack of candor, it would be one thing. We all make mistakes. Like many media outlets as well as social media they dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian disinformation (damn Russians are everywhere). The laptop story could very well have tipped the election to Trump. The fact that the nation’s media, with one notable exception, convinced the public that the laptop was not Hunter Biden’s may very well have elected Biden — there are reputable polls which say as much. I may have missed it but very little if anything has found its way onto the pages of the Inquirer about the fact that the laptop has been proven to be Hunter’s and that it has very damning information on it. Having played a (perhaps) unwitting part in tilting the election for president, don’t they owe it to their readers to correct untruths they published? Is this another lie of omission?
There is more than one way to lie, and apparently the Inquirer has chosen to lie by omission.
I believe that the Inquirer has, in the past, played an important role in bringing issues to the public’s attention. Just as importantly, they gave the public the information — the facts — needed to make informed decisions about those issues. To have a functioning democracy the public needs information but information which is based on facts. Information, which is calculated to support a narrative, the facts be damned, should be left to candidates or the editorial pages. Unfortunately, the news section of the Inquirer is now largely filled with articles written by “woke” sycophants who believe lies even by commission constitute legitimate journalism.
Wally Nunn is the former Chairman of Delaware County Council, a former member of the Delaware County Jail Oversight, and is currently the chairman of the Broad + Liberty board of directors.