This is in reaction to the editorial titled “Too clever” (Inquirer, 1/25/13). I do not personally know Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, and I am not writing this letter to defend him—at his age he is more than capable of doing that.
I don’t like him either. But I find it improper for an editorial in a newspaper that promotes “balanced news” to single out Enrile for scathing criticism.
The editorial should have provided premises to allow us readers to draw our own conclusions. It should have presented its views in a manner that provokes critical thinking instead of spoonfeeding information wrapped in “emotional signatures.” Otherwise, the Inquirer should delete the word “balanced news” in its slogan.
Indeed, the editorial appears to me as a journalistic inquisition that condemns Enrile to public humiliation by indoctrination. The editorial itself showed its power to justify its own justification. Its conclusion reads: “To Enrile’s world, to be prepared is to do whatever it takes, because the end always, always, justifies the means.”
Has the Inquirer become a tool for personal retribution or does it just serve as a means to justify its claim to “balanced news”? Not too clever!
—CARLOS ERWIN I. FAJARDO, firstname.lastname@example.org
“Balanced news, fearless views” is the Inquirer slogan, in full. Surely editorials that criticize both Enrile and his critics (see, for example, “Secret sauce,” 1/18/13) fall under the second category?—Ed.