Sunday's Philly Inquirer gives a hint of editorial intentions.

[harlinchi]

On Sunday, 7-22-07, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an issue which, I thought, gave a hint of what it intends regarding editorial positions. There were two voices of reason, Rubin and Satullo, both of whom I admire for their thoughtful approaches to many of the problems we face (Nationally and internationally in the case of Rubin. Those and locally in Satullo's case.) Satullo informs us of the prestidigitation-al methods used by the elected officials to distract us from issues. Rubin tells us what must be done in Iraq, from her knowledgeable perspective.

Rubin says things like:
But if we and the Iraqis are to be saved from the consequences of Bush's follies, only Republicans can do it. Twelve good men and women are needed, or perhaps 17 (which would enable a bipartisan proposal to survive a veto). The senators need to tell Bush he cannot wait until September, when Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker deliver their next "snapshot."

They should deliver a message like this:

"Mr. President, as the polls show, the American public no longer believes in the Iraq war. Our generals say the solution must be political, and our goal is to hand over security to Iraqis. Yet the public can see that the Iraqi government is divided by sect and ethnicity, as are Iraqi security forces. If Iraqis can't get together, voters ask, how can our military ever hand it over?

Satullo coins a term called the 'butwhatabouts'.

Their articles are here: Rubin: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/trudy_rubin/20070722_Worldview___Up_to_GOP_to_show_Bush_the_way_out.html

Satullo: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/chris_satullo/20070722_Center_Square___Time-honored_childs_ploy_for_muffling_truth.html

On the extremes there was Polman balanced by Smerconish. Polman discussed a very real discussion framing possibility for Democrats to use. Smerconish blathered about a curriculum change in the UK. Substance versus silliness.

Their articles are here: Polman: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/dick_polman/5849992.html

Smerconish: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/michael_smerconish/20070722_Head_Strong___National_changes__terror_threats__hmm.html

I'm sorry to see Satullo leave the 'Editorial Page Editor' position (folks may remember his '21 Reasons to Elect Kerry' series of articles) but I'm encouraged by this sort of analysis. May it continue!

[Captain Hilts]

1. Rubin is excellent and doesn't get enough exposure or credit for it. nt

[enough]

2. The idea of Polman "balancing" Smerconish doesn't ring true.

Polman is middle of the road horse-race "analysis," while Smerconish is rabid far-right. There's no "balance" here or anywhere else at the Inquirer.

Dick Polman wrote the Inquirer's extensive retrospective of Sandra Day O'Conner's term on the Supreme Court without a single mention of Bush V. Gore and the "election" of 2000.

I commend you to Edward Herman's on-going critique of the Inquirer at:

http://www.inkywatch.org/

[harlinchi]

3. Thanks for the link.

I agree that Polman can reveal the dark side of apparent liberal journalism, i.e., that he falls to his knees and touches his forehead to the ground occasionally when a distracting, GOP-supporting event occurs. I still think he would be considered a voice for the left, though.

Given our right-tilted times, perhaps one with extreme right wing views can be balanced by moderate, politically middle-of-th-road journalistic views. You must admit, though, that this current article of his swings decidedly left.

Hearing that Ferris contributes to the Inquirer's decline in encouraging, though. It's always nice when one's own views are confirmed by (very likely more intelligent) others. I disagree that Rubin parrots the pentagon's views, as a rule.

[fencesitter]

4. Sunday's front page gave me pause..

The big center page story was about a super patriot (I was thinking obsesive) woman from Montana who hunts terrorists in chat rooms.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_left_story/20070723_INQUIRER_EXCLUSIVE_An_Unexpected_Patriot.html

The story down the right hand front page was a Dem bashing article (editorial?) about Harry Reid shutting down debate in Iraq withdrawal talks. I can't find the link, sorry.

[harlinchi]

5. I saw those as well.

That's why the articles in the Editorial section appeared to provide a counterweight! I guess we'll never have regular news anymore!