Blanced News No More! What's Wrong With Inquirer Today?

BALANCED NEWS NO MORE

WHAT’S WRONG WITH INQUIRER TODAY?

By Bro. Marlex Cantor

Published 29 November 2015 at

https://www.facebook.com/marlex.cantor

IF the Inquirer story on alleged IRS raps filed against INC in the US relied HEAVILY on the hallucinations of an ex-INC member, this story http://technology.inquirer.net/…/blogger-ebangelista-writes… is based ENTIRELY on a slanderous blog claiming to be written by an anonymous liar who is clearly among the camp of expelled INC ministers and members seeking desperately to topple the church's present leadership.

How many thousands of letter and emails does the Inquirer receive daily? And yet, this AE "warning" was singled out and merited a full space in this overrated publication? For what? Is it a matter of national security? NO. Is it a warning about an impending calamity? NO. It is even an old issue. There is no news value to it!

What it does show is the undeniable indication of the writer's and his editors' bias against the INC. For if only they had lived up to the Inquirer's tagline "BALANCED NEWS", they would not have published it without considering first that there are also many bloggers who have refuted in detail those false allegations on behalf of the INC. To name a few, there is http://theiglesianicristo.blogspot.com

Simply googling will yield these results. Or are the reporter and his editors that lazy to search about it first to give their story even just a hint of balance and fairness?

This also indicates that the Inquirer allows itself to be used (if not willingly takes part) in the vain attempt to crucify the INC by trial by publicity---all for what? To support their political allies in the coming elections?

Last I heard, such bias or discrimination against any religion, INC included, have no room in responsible journalism. Especially when it comes from an anonymous source.

Allow me to share this quote from the book The Elements of Journalism (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2001), p.90:

“Joe Lelyveld, executive editor of the New York Times, required that reporters and editors at the Times ask themselves two questions before using an anonymous source”
1. How much direct knowledge does the anonymous source have of the event?
2. What, if any, motive might the source have for misleading us, gilding the lily, or hiding the important facts that might alter our impression of the information?
“Only after they are satisfied by the answers to these questions will they use the source. And then, to the maximum degree possible, they have to share with the audience information to suggest how the source was in a position to know … and what special interest that source may have …”