Writers attempt to communicate with the written word, and decent writers should know at least something about grammar, to ply their trade most efficiently. One important concept in grammar is the difference between the comparative and the superlative.

Comparatives vs. Superlatives

Published October 7, 2019

Not all things are created equal: some are good, others are better, and only the cream of the crop rise to the level of best. These three words—good, better, and best—are examples of the three forms of an adjective or adverb: positive, comparative, and superlative. . . . .

There are a few irregular adjectives and adverbs. For those, you must memorize how these change the spelling of their positive form to show comparative and superlative degrees.

Some common irregular adjectives are good, better, best and bad, worse, worst.

Some have more than one option: little can become littler or less (comparative), and littlest or least (superlative). Many, some, or much become more in the comparative and most in the superlative.

It was this paragraph which caught my attention, in the main editorial in this morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer. Any decent writer understands that he shouldn’t use the same word twice in a sentence if possible, so when the Editorial Board wrote that “too many residents endure,” the following should be “where most, but not all, the shootings occur.”

Many, as an adjective, means:

1. constituting or forming a large number; numerous: many people.
2. noting each one of a large number (usually followed by: For many a day it rained.

The Board’s use of “many” rather than “most” is technically acceptable, but by not using the superlative, the Board are trying to say that yes, the majority of shootings occur in Philadelphia’s minority neighborhoods, but still try to minimize that just a little bit.

There is no hiding from Philly’s gun violence | Editorial

A recent shooting was captured by a security camera in horrifying detail. It should be required viewing to better understand the fear and trauma that too many residents endure.

by The Editorial Board | Tuesday, March 7, 2023 | 5:30 AM EST

It was yet another violent weekend in Philadelphia, met largely with silence and indifference.

Five people were killed — including a 14-year-old — in seven shootings over an eight-hour span. That should be enough to jolt leaders into action.

But the only thing worse than the rampant violence is the ho-hum response from the Kenney administration. Mayor Jim Kenney tweeted about the passing of a retired Comcast Spectacor executive but had nothing to say on social media about the murders. Ditto Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw.

All of the mayoral candidates have said gun violence is their top issue. Yet, among the gaggle of hopefuls vying to replace Kenney, only Democrat Allan Domb and Republican David Oh noted the murders over the weekend.

Really, what is there to say, by people like Helen Gym Flaherty, the furthest left Democratic candidate, who once tweeted that she wants to set criminals free, and supports the city’s George Soros-sponsored defense attorney-turned-chief prosecutor Larry Krasner, just because another few killings have happened? If most of the candidates said nothing, it’s because the policies that they support encourage crime, not discourage it.

Three paragraphs further down, we come to the one I noted above, referring to the broad daylight shooting in Strawberry Mansion:

That shooting was captured by a security camera in horrifying detail. It should be required viewing to better understand the fear and trauma that too many residents endure in Philadelphia, especially in poorer and largely Black and brown neighborhoods where many, but not all, the shootings occur.

There were twelve shooting victims listed in the city’s shooting victims database for the Friday, Saturday, and Sunday weekend, and eleven of them were black, ten of them male. The twelfth victim was an Hispanic white woman. For the entire month of March, through the 6^th, there were 18 shootings, with 12 victims being black males, 4 being Hispanic white males, with 1 Hispanic white female and one black female. None of the black victims were listed as being Latino.

It gets worse than that. There have been 283 recorded shooting victims this year through March 6^th, and not just many, but most have been, in the Inquirer’s formulation, “black and brown.” Only 5.65% of all recorded shooting victims have not been black or Hispanic. Put the other way, 94.35% have been black or Hispanic.

When the Editorial Board write that the violence is in “poorer and largely Black and brown neighborhoods where many, but not all, the shootings occur”, they are trying to tell the truth, but in a soft-pedaled way, done, I suppose, to meet publisher Elizabeth ‘Lisa’ Hughes’ directive that the newspaper be an “anti-racist news organization.”

To the Inquirer,, and to the newspaper’s Editorial Board, being “anti-racist” means to not tell the whole truth. The Inky has several researchers who look at existing data, to support the reporters and news writers, and I am certain that they have, and know, the numbers, but the newspaper just doesn’t want to give those numbers to readers.

But let’s tell the whole truth here: the Editorial Board know exactly what the real problem is, that there is a culture in those “poorer and largely black and brown neighborhoods” which allows the gang-bangers and wannabes to carry and use firearms. But the Board can’t come out and tell that truth, and the vast majority of the Democratic political establishment cannot come out and tell that truth, because that would be raaaaacist.

This is what we have today: journolists^[1]The spelling ‘journolist’ or ‘journolism’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their … Continue reading today love to protect the freedom of speech and of the press for themselves, but they are using their freedom of the press to not tell uncomfortable truths.

The masthead of The Philadelphia Inquirer used to call itself a “Public Ledger” and “An Independent Newspaper for All the People”. By Public ledger, the Inquirer was setting itself up as Philadelphia’s newspaper of record, which Wikipedia defines as “a major newspaper with large circulation whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative.” First printed on Monday, June 1, 1829, the then Pennsylvania Inquirer is older than all but two continuously published daily newspapers, the Hartford Courant and the New York Post. “An editorial in the first issue of The Pennsylvania Inquirer promised that the paper would be devoted to the right of a minority to voice their opinion and ‘the maintenance of the rights and liberties of the people, equally against the abuses as the usurpation of power.’”

Boy, has that ideal fallen by the wayside! Now it is dedicated as a Democratic Party house organ, and does its best to obscure the truth when the truth doesn’t fit Teh Narrative.