To the Editor:
In a letter to the editor in the July 31 edition of the Herald under the heading “Re: Attempted Assassination of Trump,” a contributor denigrates the Philadelphia Inquirer for not giving the assassination attempt the attention the matter deserves. The writer states that in the July 14 Sunday edition (day after the assassination attempt) of the Inquirer, the paper only placed its coverage at the bottom half of page one with the rest of the paper devoted to, as he said, “negative articles about Trump.”
Although I respect all persons who make efforts to expand their reading lists beyond the self-affirming echo chamber(s) that most people tend to live in, the writer does not accurately portray the Inquirer’s July 14 coverage of the assassination attempt. The huge picture of Secret Service agents leading a bloody President Trump away from the podium dominates the top half of the July 14 front page, and the boldfaced “Trump bloodied but fine after shooting at Pa. rally” is almost as large as the name of the paper at the top of the page. This shows the Philadelphia Inquirer was giving the attempted assassination far more attention than the writer gave the paper credit for.
Additionally, approximately 75% of page A5 of the July 14 Inquirer provides more information about the attempted assassination. Further and contrary to the contributor’s letter, a much higher percentage of the content in the July 14 paper is non-Trump related information and stories. In the July 15 Inquirer and when far more information had become available, the paper devotes almost its entire first page (and additional content) to the attempted assassination subject.
Despite that contributor’s opinion in his letter to the editor, the Philadelphia Inquirer appears to have given the assassination attempt story the attention it merits.
PETER FICK
North Wildwood
