Half the story?
It’s a good thing that The Inquirer fact-checked a report on the Quakertown police chief’s February confrontation with teenage demonstrators. The article notes that the report about the incident misstates the amount of time the chief gripped a child in a choke hold.
Unfortunately, this fact-check comes 11 paragraphs into the story. I know Inquirer editors understand that, in 2026, many readers do not make it 11 paragraphs into any story before going back to Instagram. Many, many more readers will only see a headline or an embed on social media and don’t click it to read the entire story.
This fact-check could have been in the headline. It could have been in the first paragraph or the second paragraph or the third paragraph. But it isn’t, and the result is that your story spreads a lie rather than focusing on how you debunked it. The truth isn’t a different perspective to be added late in the piece for balance. It’s the core of this story.
What happened in Quakertown was part of a nationwide crackdown on dissent led by law enforcement and cheered on by elected officials. That is the story. It’s not a separate story from the murders in Minneapolis, and it’s more urgent than the story you chose to tell.
Matt Sullivan, Philadelphia
. . .
I wish I could be relieved that the police chief of Quakertown Borough was cleared of wrongdoing in a violent clash with high school students demonstrating against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But the review of his conduct by a panel composed of four members of the Police Chiefs Association of Bucks County is a textbook example of the blue wall of silence, which just about anyone could recognize as a conflict of interest. Equally ridiculous is how the Bucks County District Attorney’s Office initially charged some of the students with aggravated assault and ordered them to wear ankle monitors during the course of an “investigation” before dropping the charges. The failure of elected officials to avoid textbook conflicts of interest should make Quakertown and Bucks County voters more determined to place people with sound judgment in positions of power.
Debra Weiner, Quakertown
. . .
It’s disappointing that the editors of The Inquirer misled its readers with the rose-colored headline, “Panel clears Quakertown police chief.” Deep into the story, it’s revealed that the panel chosen by the Quakertown politicos consisted of four Bucks County police chiefs. That is suspicious in and of itself, given what we know about the historical failings of police investigating police. Deeper into the story, we’re given information about a discrepancy regarding the amount of time the chief held a teenager in a choke hold. (What’s left unsaid is that the members of the panel think it’s OK to choke a kid for two seconds. In reality, that’s plenty of time to seriously hurt someone.) Your headline shouldn’t have read, “Panel clears …” but rather, “Panel members and report findings raise questions.”
We are no longer 1950s readers. We expect the paper to present the facts from the get-go. If the editors decided to whitewash the story with that headline, that is an indictment of the paper. Perhaps the editors should appoint a panel?
Mike Levin, Philadelphia
Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.