DAILY DOSE OF INQUIRER BIAS ON IRAQ.
Today's issue, October 8, 2002, is a perfect example of that pervasive bias and unfair editorializing. President Bush has just delivered one of the most important speeches of his presidency, seeking to mobilize the nation in the war against terrorism and its most dangerous terrorist, Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Every serious newspaper I checked headlined the speech above the fold, and included a picture of the president delivering the speech. You'd have to be totally out of it not to realize that Bush's speech should be the lead story of the day. This conclusion is virtually mandatory in terms of editing by any newspaper, regardless of its editorial policy. So that's what the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the New York Post and the New York Daily News did.
But what did the Inquirer do? First, it ran a story under the fold and without Bush's picture. It takes incredible bias and editorial distortion to keep Bush's speech from being placed where the top story of the day should go. What's worse, the top story of the day for the Inquirer was headlined, "Officials' private doubts on Iraq war: Some military, intelligence and diplomatic sources say hawks are overstating the danger that Baghdad poses." What's worse, the story is based on the Inquirer's usual anonymous sources, with no experts speaking on the record to confirm those who prefer to stay off the record. This is a standard procedure for the Inquirer's Washington Bureau. It collects a bunch of anonymous sources to support their editorial position, which is to oppose military action against Iraq. Instead of running Trudy Rubin's nonsense on the editorial page, they let the Washington bureau dress it up with anonymous sources and make it the lead story instead of President Bush's speech. This is an editorial dressed up to pose as the lead news story of the day.
To make this journalistic meltdown even smellier and less professional, the Inquirer can't even claim high-ranking administration officials for their anonymous sources. To give this kind of back-alley whispering credibility, most newspapers manage to find high-ranking officials or at least claim to do so. But the Inquirer can't even manage that.
Compare this to the coverage of the New York Times, which has been lambasted for letting its editorial positions leak all over its paper and onto its front-page. But even the New York Times put Bush's speech, with picture, as the top story of the day. But the Inquirer is unable to rein in its bias and distortions, even when it is so obvious and shocking even to a casual observer of its journalistic malfeasance.
DAILY DOSE OF BIAS ON NAZI HISTORY OF GERMANY.
If you care to explore its bias-of-the-day further, consider its treatment of a story which is highlighted on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, with this sentence: "Bertelsmann (a German media firm) acknowledged it collaborated with the Nazis, recanting its previous claims of World War II resistance." Consider how the Inquirer played this story in comparison to some other major newspapers.
The New York Times ran a major story headlined "Bertelsmann Offers Regret for Its Nazi-Era Conduct." In recognition of its importance, the Times also made the story a part of its news summary of the day. The Wall Street Journal highlighted the story in its front-page news summary, as indicated above, and also ran a full story on Bertelsmann-Nazi connection. The New York Daily News ran a full story and the Financial Times of London highlighted the scandal on its front-page, referring to Bertelsmann's publication of anti-Semitic literature, along with a reference to the top story in its news digest.
How did the Inquirer handle the story? A full story? No. A top story in its news summary or a front-page blurb? No. It merely ran a three-sentence item, deep into its news summary. How can this be explained? The most obvious explanation is that the standard Inquirer bias not limited to any one subject. But for whatever it is worth, I should also mention the well-documented Nazi history of the Ridder family, which merged their newspapers into what is now the Knight Ridder chain in 1974. Members of the Ridder family are still active in top positions in the newspaper chain today.
Only the Ridders can explain if this Nazi history still has an influence on their publications today. I certainly cannot prove that influence. As far as I know, they have not made a statement on the subject. Like Bertelsmann, the Ridders were leading Nazi collaborators and supporters; but perhaps worse yet, the three famous Ridder Nazis (Victor, Bernard, and Joseph) were Americans who were the leading Nazi collaborators and supporters during the 1930s and 1940s, and close friends, associates and admirers of Hitler, even privy to his war plans. Knight Ridder is now headed by Anthony Ridder, whose grandfather and two grand uncles were those three leading American Nazis of their time. (See Louis Nizer, My Life in Court, Chapter 4; for a summary of that material, see my web site, thedenenbergreport.org). As I've pointed out elsewhere, I cannot prove that the Nazi history of the Ridder family plays a role in its present day news judgment. But I can point out that everyone is strongly influenced by grandparents and parents, and that to my knowledge the Ridders have never come forward to make a statement on the Nazi past of their family. If my grandfather was a leading American Nazi of that time, I would certainly take every occasion to deny his influence over my behavior on this subject and I would tell all my employees and associates to make that kind of statement for me if they were to be asked. Only recently, a reporter, covering this aspect of the Knight Ridder newspaper chain, told me Anthony Ridder did not return his calls when asked about this, and editors questioned about it did not comment on it either.
DAILY DOSE OF INQUIRER BIAS ON ISRAEL
Needless to say, the Inquirer continues its decade long flow of anti-Israel bias in its October 8, 2002 issue, but that component of its bias has already been over-documented. Perhaps the priority now should be the easy demonstration that the Inquirer cannot be trusted as a fair and balanced source of news on Israel, Iraq, Germany or any other subject.
Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, professor at the Wharton School, and
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National
Academy of Sciences and is a board member of the Center for Safe Medication Use. He is an adjunct
professor of insurance and information science and technology at Cabrini College. You can write Herb
at POB 7301,St. Davids, PA e-mail him at hdenenberg@aol.com or reach him at his two Web sites:
thedenrep_archive.org or denenbergsdump.org