THE PROFESSION OF JOURNALISM
OTHER COLLECTIONS
drawn from _The Atlantic Monthly_ are published under the following
titles:—
ATLANTIC CLASSICS, _First Series_ $1.25
ATLANTIC CLASSICS, _Second Series_ $1.25
HEADQUARTERS NIGHTS. By _Vernon Kellogg_ $1.00
THE WAR AND THE SPIRIT OF YOUTH. By _Maurice Barrès_ and Others $1.00
PAN-GERMANY: THE DISEASE AND CURE. By _André Chéradame_ $ .35
THE ASSAULT ON HUMANISM. By _Paul Shorey_ $1.00
SHOCK AT THE FRONT. By _William T. Porter M.D._ $1.25
ATLANTIC NARRATIVES. Edited by _Charles Swain Thomas_ $1.00
ESSAYS AND ESSAY WRITING. Edited by _W. M. Tanner_ $1.00
THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY PRESS
BOSTON
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PROFESSION OF
JOURNALISM
A Collection of Articles on Newspaper Editing and Publishing, Taken from
the Atlantic Monthly
EDITED WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY
WILLARD GROSVENOR BLEYER, PH.D.
_Author of “Newspaper Writing and Editing” and “Types of News Writing”;
Professor of Journalism in the University of Wisconsin_
[Illustration]
The Atlantic Monthly Press
BOSTON
_Copyright, 1918, by_
THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY PRESS, INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREFACE
The purpose of this book is to bring together in convenient form a
number of significant contributions to the discussion of the newspaper
and its problems which have appeared in the _Atlantic Monthly_ in recent
years. Although these articles were intended only for the readers of
that magazine at the time of their original publication, they have
permanent value for the general reader, for newspaper workers, and for
students of journalism.
Practically every phase of journalism is taken up in these articles,
including newspaper publishing, news and editorial policies, the
influence of the press, yellow and sensational journalism, the problems
of the newspaper in small cities, country journalism, the Associated
Press, the law of libel, book-reviewing, dramatic criticism, “comics,”
free-lance writing, and the opportunities in the profession. For readers
who desire to make a further study of any of the important aspects of
the press, a bibliography of such books and magazine articles as are
generally available in public libraries has been appended.
Most of the authors of the articles in this volume are newspaper and
magazine writers and editors whose long experience in journalism gives
particular value to their analysis of conditions, past and present.
Brief notes on the journalistic work of the writers are given in the
Appendix.
For permission to reprint the articles the editor is indebted to the
writers and to the editor of the _Atlantic Monthly_.
W. G. B.
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN,
January 12, 1918.
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION. _Willard Grosvenor Bleyer_ ix
SOME ASPECTS OF JOURNALISM. _Rollo Ogden_ 1
PRESS TENDENCIES AND DANGERS. _Oswald Garrison Villard_ 20
THE WANING POWER OF THE PRESS. _Francis E. Leupp_ 30
NEWSPAPER MORALS. _H. L. Mencken_ 52
NEWSPAPER MORALS: A REPLY. _Ralph Pulitzer_ 68
THE SUPPRESSION OF IMPORTANT NEWS. _Edward Alsworth Ross_ 79
THE PERSONAL EQUATION IN JOURNALISM. _Henry Watterson_ 97
THE PROBLEM OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. “_An Observer_” 112
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: A REPLY. _Melville E. Stone_ 124
CONFESSIONS OF A PROVINCIAL EDITOR. “_Paracelsus_” 133
THE COUNTRY EDITOR OF TO-DAY. _Charles Moreau Harger_ 151
SENSATIONAL JOURNALISM AND THE LAW. _George W. Alger_ 167
THE CRITIC AND THE LAW. _Richard Washburn Child_ 181
HONEST LITERARY CRITICISM. _Charles Miner Thompson_ 200
DRAMATIC CRITICISM IN THE AMERICAN
PRESS. _James S. Metcalfe_ 224
THE HUMOR OF THE COLORED SUPPLEMENT. _Ralph Bergengren_ 233
THE AMERICAN GRUB STREET. _James H. Collins_ 243
JOURNALISM AS A CAREER. _Charles Moreau Harger_ 264
BIBLIOGRAPHY 279
NOTES ON THE WRITERS 290
INTRODUCTION
BY WILLARD GROSVENOR BLEYER
I
“The food of opinion,” as President Wilson has well said, “is the news
of the day.” The daily newspaper, for the majority of Americans, is the
sole purveyor of this food for thought. Citizens of a democracy must
read and assimilate the day’s news in order to form opinions on current
events and issues. Again, for the average citizen the newspaper is
almost the only medium for the interpretation and discussion of
questions of the day. The composite of individual opinions, which we
call public opinion, must express itself in action to be effective. The
newspaper, with its daily reiteration, is the most powerful force in
urging citizens to act in accordance with their convictions. By
reflecting the best sentiment of the community in which it is published,
the newspaper makes articulate intelligent public opinion that might
otherwise remain unexpressed. Since the success of democracy depends not
only upon intelligent public opinion but upon political action in
accordance with such opinion, it is not too much to say that the future
of democratic government in this country depends upon the character of
its newspapers.
Yet most newspaper readers not unnaturally regard the daily paper as an
ephemeral thing to be read hurriedly and cast aside. Few appreciate the
extent to which their opinions are affected by the newspaper they read.
Nevertheless, to every newspaper reader—which means almost every person
in this country—the conditions under which newspapers are produced and
the influences that affect the character of news and editorials, should
be matters of vital concern.
To newspaper workers and students of journalism the analysis of the
fundamental questions of their profession is of especial importance.
Discussion of current practices must precede all effort to arrive at
definite standards for the profession of journalism. Only when the
newspaper man realizes the probable effect of his work on the ideas and
ideals of thousands of readers, and hence on the character of our
democracy, does he appreciate the full significance of his news story,
headline, or editorial.
The modern newspaper has developed so recently from simple beginnings
into a great, complex institution that no systematic and extensive study
has been made of its problems. Journalism has won recognition as a
profession only within the last seventy-five years, and professional
schools for the training of newspaper writers and editors have been in
existence less than fifteen years. In view of these conditions, it is
not surprising that definite principles and a generally accepted code of
ethics for the practice of the profession have not been formulated.
Ideal conditions of newspaper editing and publishing are not likely to
be brought about by legislation. So jealous are the American people of
the liberty of their press that they hesitate, even when their very
existence as a nation is threatened, to impose legal restrictions on the
printing of news and opinion. If regulation does come, it should be the
result, as it has been in the professions of law and medicine, of the
creation of an enlightened public opinion in support of professional
standards adopted by journalists themselves.
The present is an auspicious time to discuss such standards. The world
war has put to the test, not only men and machinery, but every
institution of society. Of each organized activity we ask, Is it serving
most effectively the common good? Not simply service to the state, but
service to society, is being demanded more and more of every individual
and every institution. “These are the times which try men’s souls,” and
that try no less the mediums through which men’s souls find expression.
The newspaper, as the purveyor of “food of opinion” and as the medium
for expressing opinion, must measure up to the test of the times.
II
The first step in a systematic analysis of the principles of journalism
must be a consideration of the function of the newspaper in a democracy.
In the varied and voluminous contents of a typical newspaper are to be
found news of all kinds, editorial comment, illustrations of current
events, recipes, comic strips, fashions, cartoons, advice on affairs of
the heart, short stories, answers to questions on etiquette, dramatic
criticism, chapters of a serial, book reviews, verse, a “colyum,” and
advertisements. What in this mélange is the one element which
distinguishes the newspaper from all other publications? It is the daily
news. Weekly and monthly periodicals do everything that the newspaper
does, except print the news from day to day.
Whatever other aims a newspaper may have, its primary purpose must be to
give adequate reports of the day’s news. Although various inducements
other than news may be employed to attract some persons to newspapers
who would not otherwise read them regularly, nevertheless these features
must not be so prominent or attractive that readers with limited time at
their disposal will neglect the day’s news for entertainment.
To assist the public to grasp the significance of the news by means of
editorial interpretation and discussion, to render articulate the best
public sentiment, and to persuade citizens to act in accordance with
their opinions, constitute an important secondary function of the
newspaper. Even though the editorial may seem to exert a less direct
influence upon the opinions and political action of the average citizen
than it did in the period of great editorial leadership, nevertheless
the interpretation and discussion of timely topics in the editorial
columns of the daily press are a force in democratic government that
cannot be disregarded.
Newspapers by their editorials can perform two peculiarly important
services to the public. First, they can show the relation of state,
national, and international questions to the home and business interests
of their readers. Only as the great issues of the day are brought home
to the average reader is he likely to become keenly interested in their
solution. Second, newspapers in their editorials can point out the
connection between local questions and state-wide, nation-wide, or
world-wide movements. Only as questions at issue in a community are
shown in their relation to larger tendencies will the average reader see
them in a perspective that will enable him to think and act most
intelligently.
In addition to fulfilling these two functions, the newspaper may supply
its readers with practical advice and useful information, as well as
with entertaining reading matter and illustrations. There is more
justification for wholesome advice and entertainment in newspapers that
circulate largely among classes whose only reading matter is the daily
paper than there is in papers whose readers obtain these features from
other periodicals. In view of the numberless cheap, popular magazines in
this country, the extent to which daily newspapers should devote space
and money to advice and entertainment deserves careful consideration.
That without such consideration these features may encroach
unjustifiably on news and editorials seems evident.
III
Since the primary function of the newspaper is to give the day’s news,
the question arises, What is news? If from the point of view of
successful democracy the value of news is determined by the extent to
which it furnishes food for thought on current topics, we are at once
given an important criterion for defining news and measuring
news-values. Thus, news is anything timely which is significant to
newspaper readers in their relation to the community, the state, and the
nation.
This conception of news is not essentially at variance with the commonly
accepted definition of it as anything timely that interests a number of
readers, the best news being that which has greatest interest for the
greatest number. The most vital matters for both men and women are their
home and their business interests, their success and their happiness.
Anything in the day’s news that touches directly or indirectly these
things that are nearest and dearest to them, they will read with
eagerness. As they may not always be able to see at once the relation of
current events and issues to their home, business, and community
interests, it is the duty of the newspaper to present news in such a way
that its significance to the average reader will be clear. Every
newspaper man knows the value of “playing up” the “local ends” of events
that take place outside of the community in which his paper is
published, but this method of bringing home to readers the significance
to them of important news has not been as fully worked out as it will
be. On this basis the best news is that which can be shown to be most
closely related to the interests of the largest number of readers.
“But newspapers must publish entertaining news stories as well as
significant ones,” insists the advocate of things as they are. This may
be conceded, but only with three important limitations. First, stories
for mere entertainment that deal with events of little or no news-value
must not be allowed to crowd out significant news. Second, such
entertaining news-matter must not be given so much space and prominence,
or be made so attractive, that the average reader with but limited time
in which to read his paper will neglect news of value. Third, events of
importance must not be so treated as to furnish entertainment primarily,
to the subordination of their true significance. To substitute the _hors
d’œuvres_, relishes, and dessert of the day’s happenings for nourishing
“food of opinion” is to serve an unbalanced, unwholesome mental diet.
The relish should heighten, not destroy, a taste for good food.
IV
In order to furnish the average citizen with material from which to form
opinions on all current issues, so that he may vote intelligently on men
and measures, newspapers must supply significant news in as complete and
as accurate a form as possible. The only important limitations to
completeness are those imposed by the commonly accepted ideas of decency
embodied in the phrase, “All the news that’s fit to print,” and by the
rights of privacy. Carefully edited newspapers discriminate between what
the public is entitled to know and what an individual has a right to
keep private.
Inaccuracy, due to the necessity for speed in getting news into print,
most newspapers agree must be reduced to a minimum. The establishment of
bureaus of accuracy, and constant emphasis on such mottoes as “Accuracy
First,” “Accuracy Always,” and “If you see it in the _Sun_, it’s so,”
are steps in that direction.
Deliberate falsification of news for any purpose, good or bad, must be
regarded as an indefensible violation of the fundamental purpose of the
press. Any cause, no matter how worthy it may be, which cannot depend on
facts and truth for its support does not deserve to have facts and truth
distorted in its behalf.
The “faking” of news can never be harmless. Even though the fictitious
touches in an apparently innocent “human-interest” or “feature” story
may be recognized by most readers, yet the effect is harmful. “It’s only
a newspaper story,” expresses the all-too-common attitude of a public
whose confidence in the reliability of newspapers has been undermined by
news stories wholly or partially “faked.”
The “coloring,” adulteration, and suppression of news as “food of
opinion” is as dangerous to the body politic as similar manipulation of
food-stuffs was to the physical bodies of our people before such
practices were forbidden by law. How completely the opinions and moral
judgments of a whole nation may be perverted by deliberate “coloring”
and suppression of news, in this case by its own government, was
demonstrated in Germany immediately before and during the world war.
The jury of newspaper readers must have “the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth,” if it is to give an intelligent verdict.
V
The so-called “yellow journals” are glaring examples of newspapers built
up on news and editorial policies shaped to attract undiscriminating
readers by sensational methods. By constantly emphasizing sensational
news and by “sensationalizing” and “melodramatizing” news that is not
sufficiently startling, as well as by editorials stirring up class
feeling among the masses against the monied and ruling classes, “yellow
journals” have been able to outstrip all other papers in circulation.
Unquestionably the most serious aspect of the influence of sensational
and yellow journalism is the distorted view of life thus given. Because
these papers are widely read by the partially assimilated groups of
foreign immigrants in large centres of population, like New York and
Chicago, they exert a particularly dangerous influence by giving these
future citizens a wrong conception of American society and government.
That the false ideas of our life and institutions given to foreign
elements of our population while they are in the process of becoming
Americanized are a serious menace to this country, requires no proof. No
matter who the readers may be, however, news that is “colored” to appear
“yellow,” and misleading editorials, will always be dangerous to the
public welfare.
VI
The treatment of sensational events, particularly those involving crime
and scandal, undoubtedly constitutes one of the difficult problems of
all newspapers. The demoralizing effect of accounts of criminal and
vicious acts, when read by immature and morally unstable individuals, is
generally admitted. On the other hand, fear of publicity and consequent
disgrace to the wrong-doer and his family, is a powerful deterrent.
Moreover, if newspapers suppressed news of crime and vice, citizens
might remain ignorant of the extent to which they existed in the
community, and consequently, with the aid of a corrupt local government,
wrong-doing might flourish until it was a menace to every member of the
community.
To give sufficient publicity to news of crime and scandal in order to
provide the necessary deterrent effect, to furnish readers with the
information to which they are entitled, and at the same time to present
such news so that it will not give offense or encourage morally weak
readers to emulate the criminal and the vicious, define the middle
course which exponents of constructive journalism must steer.
VII
Criticisms of the newspaper of the present day should not leave us with
the impression that the American press is deteriorating. No one who
compares the newspaper of to-day with its predecessors of fifty,
seventy-five, or a hundred years ago, can fail to appreciate how
immeasurably superior in every respect is the press of the present day.
In our newspapers now there is much less of narrow political
partisanship, much less of editorial vituperation and personal abuse,
much less of objectionable advertising, and relatively less news of
crime and scandal. Viewed from a distance of more than half a century,
great American editors loom large, but a critical study of the papers
they edited shows their limitations. They were pioneers in a new
land,—for modern journalism began but eighty-five years ago,—and as
such, they deserve all honor for blazing the trail; but we must not be
blind to the defects of the papers that they produced, any more than we
may overlook the faults of the press of our own day.
The period of the struggle against slavery culminating in the Civil War
was one of great editorial leadership. To say that it was the era of
great “views-papers” and that the present is the day of great
“news-papers” is to sum up the essential difference between the two
periods. In terms of democratic government, this means that citizens of
the older day were accustomed to accept as their own, political opinions
furnished them ready-made by their favorite editor, whereas voters
to-day want to form their own opinions on the basis of the news and
editorials furnished them by their favorite paper. This greater
independence of judgment, with its corollary, greater independence in
voting, is a long step forward toward a more complete democracy.
VIII
The recent development of community spirit as a means of realizing more
fully the ideals of democracy by fostering greater solidarity among the
diverse elements of our population, has been reflected in the news
policies of many papers. By “playing up” news that tends to the
upbuilding of the community, and by “playing down,” and even eliminating
entirely, news that tends to exert an unwholesome influence, newspapers
in various parts of the country have developed a type of constructive
journalism. Such consideration for the effect of news on readers as
members of the community, and hence on community life, is one of the
most important forward steps taken by the modern newspaper.
Although occasion may arise from time to time for newspapers to turn the
searchlight of publicity on social and political corruption, the feeling
is gaining strength that newspaper crusades in the interests of
institutions and movements making for community uplift are even more
important than the continued exposure of evils. Many aggressive,
crusading papers, accordingly, have turned from a policy of exposing
such conditions to the constructive purpose of showing how various
agencies may be used for community development. “Searchlight” journalism
is thus giving way to “sunlight” journalism. A constructive policy that
aims to handle local news and “local ends” of all news in such a manner
that they will exert a wholesome, upbuilding influence on the community,
is one of the most potent forces making for a better democracy.
IX
With the entry of the United States into world-affairs in coöperation
with other nations, a new duty was placed upon the American press. For a
number of years before the world war the amount of foreign news in the
average American newspaper was very limited. With the decline of weekly
letters from foreign countries written by well-known correspondents, and
the reliance by newspapers on the great press associations for foreign
news, readers had had relatively less news of importance from abroad
than formerly. The world war naturally changed this condition
completely.
Unless the United States decides finally to return to its former policy
of isolation, American citizens must be kept in touch with important
movements in other nations, so that they can form intelligent opinions
in regard to the relation of this country to these nations. Since the
daily newspaper is the principal medium for presenting such news, it is
clear that newspapers must be prepared to present significant foreign
news in such a manner that it will attract readers, by connecting it
with their interests as American citizens.
X
How the future will solve the problems of journalism must be largely a
matter of conjecture. Temporarily the world war has given rise to
peculiar problems, none of which, however, seems likely to have
permanent effects on our newspapers. Censorship of news and of editorial
discussion has precipitated anew the ever-perplexing question of the
exact limits of the liberty of the press in war times. War, too, has
made clearer the pernicious influence resulting from the dissemination
throughout the world of “colored” news by means of semi-official news
agencies subsidized and controlled by some of the European nations. The
extent to which a whole nation may be kept in the dark by government
control of news and discussion, as well as the impossibility of other
nations getting important information to the people of such a country,
has been strikingly exemplified by Germany and Austro-Hungary. The need
of definite provision for international freedom of the press has been
pointed out as an essential factor in any programme for permanent peace.
The rise in the price of print paper and increased cost of production,
largely the result of war conditions, have led so generally to the
raising of the price of papers from one to two cents that the penny
paper bids fair to disappear entirely. This increase in price has not
appreciably reduced circulation. To economize in the use of paper during
the war, many papers have reduced the number of pages by cutting down
the amount of reading matter. Whether or not these changes will continue
when normal conditions of business are restored cannot be predicted.
Endowed newspapers, municipal newspapers, and even university
newspapers, have been proposed as possible solutions of the problems of
the press. Of these proposals only one, the municipal newspaper, has had
a trial, and even that has not been tried under conditions that permit
any conclusions as to its feasibility. Although there has been a marked
tendency, hastened by the war, toward government ownership or control of
railroad, telegraph, and telephone lines, which, like newspapers, are
private enterprises that perform a public function, there has been no
corresponding movement looking toward ownership or control of newspapers
by the federal, state, or local government.
Effective organization of newspaper writers and editors has been urged
as a means of establishing definite standards for the profession. It
seems remarkable that in this age of organization newspaper workers are
the only members of a great profession who have no national association.
Newspaper publishers, circulation managers, advertising men, and the
editor-publishers of weekly and small daily newspapers have such
organizations. For free-lance writers there is the Authors’ League of
America. In several Middle Western states organizations of city editors
have been effected; but a movement to unite them into a national
association has not as yet made much progress.
Two national newspaper conferences have been held under academic
auspices to discuss the problems of journalism, the first at the
University of Wisconsin in 1912, and the second at the University of
Kansas, two years later. Although a number of leaders in the profession
took part in the programmes and interesting discussion resulted, the
attendance of newspaper workers was not sufficiently large to be
representative of the country as a whole, and no permanent organization
was effected.
That a national organization of newspaper men and women is neither
impossible nor ineffectual has been demonstrated in Great Britain, where
three of such associations have been active for a number of years. The
Institute of Journalists of Great Britain, an association of newspaper
editors and proprietors, holds an annual conference for the discussion
of current questions in journalism and has had as its head such
distinguished journalists as Robert Donald of the London _Daily
Chronicle_, A. G. Gardiner of the London _Daily News_, and J. L. Garvin,
formerly editor of the _Pall Mall Gazette_ and now editor of the
_Observer_. The other associations are the National Union of
Journalists, composed exclusively of newspaper workers, which maintains
“branches” and “district councils” in addition to the national
association; and the Society of Women Journalists.
XI
There is no one simple solution for the complex problems of journalism.
In so far as the newspaper is a private business enterprise, it will
continue to adjust itself to the steadily advancing standards of the
business world. “Service,” the new watchword in business, is already
being taken up by the business departments of newspapers in relation to
both advertisers and readers. The rejection of objectionable advertising
and the guaranteeing of all advertising published have been among the
first steps taken toward serving both readers and honest business men by
protecting them against unscrupulous advertisers. When it is generally
accepted in the business world that service, as well as honesty, is the
best policy, no newspaper can long afford to pursue any other.
Nor need private ownership be a menace to the completeness and accuracy
with which newspapers present news and opinion. Just as business men are
coming to realize that truthful advertising is most effective and that a
satisfied customer is the best advertiser, so newspapers are coming more
and more to appreciate the fact that accuracy and fair play in news and
editorials are also “good business.” Neither the public nor a majority
of editors and publishers can afford to permit unscrupulous private
ownership to impair seriously the usefulness and integrity of any
newspaper.
In so far as the newspaper performs a public function, its usefulness
will be measured by the character of the service that it renders. Its
standing will be determined by the extent to which it serves faithfully
the community, the state, and the nation. Whatever principles are
formulated and whatever code is adopted for the profession of journalism
will be based on the fundamental idea of service to the people—to the
masses as well as to the classes.
Newspaper workers, from the “cub” reporter to the editor-in-chief, will
be recognized as public servants, not as mere employees of a private
business. The high standards maintained by them in newspaper offices
will reinforce the ideal of public service held up before college men
and women preparing themselves for journalism. The public will
understand more fully than it ever has done the necessity of supporting
heartily the standards established by newspapers themselves. Requests to
“keep it out of the paper” and threats of “stop my paper” will be less
frequent when advertisers, business men, and readers see that such
attempts at coercion are an indefensible interference with an
institution whose first duty is to the public.
With an ever-increasing appreciation of the value of its service in
business relations and with an ever-broadening conception of its duties
and responsibilities, the newspaper of to-morrow may be depended on to
do its part in the greatest of all national and international tasks,
that of “making the world safe for democracy.”
THE PROFESSION OF JOURNALISM
SOME ASPECTS OF JOURNALISM
BY ROLLO OGDEN
I
It is, in a way, a form of flattery, in the eyes of modern journalism,
that it should be put on its defense—added to the fascinating list of
“problems.” This is a tribute to its importance. The compliment may
often seem oblique. An editor will, at times, feel himself placed in
much the same category as a famous criminal—a warning, a horrible
example, a target for reproof, but still an interesting object. That
last is the redeeming feature. If the newspaper of to-day can only be
sure that it excites interest in the multitude, it is content. For to
force itself upon the general notice is the main purpose of its spirit
of shrill insistence, which so many have noted and so many have
disliked.
But the clamorous and assertive tone of the daily press may charitably
be thought of as a natural reaction from its low estate of a few
generations back. Upstart families or races usually have bad manners,
and the newspaper, as we know it, is very much of an upstart. For long,
its lot was contempt and contumely. In the first half of the eighteenth
century, writing in general was reduced to extremities. Dr. Johnson says
of Richard Savage that, “having no profession, he became by necessity an
author.” But there was a lower deep, and that was journalism. Warburton
wrote of one who is chiefly known by being pilloried in the _Dunciad_
that he “ended in the common sink of all such writers, a political
newspaper.” Even later it was recorded of the Rev. Dr. Dodd, author of
the _Beauties of Shakespeare_, that he “descended so low as to become
editor of a newspaper.” After that, but one step remained—to the
gallows; and this was duly taken by Dr. Dodd in 1777, when he was hanged
for forgery. A calling digged from such a pit may, without our special
wonder, display something of the push and insolence natural in a class
whose privileges were long so slender or so questioned that they must be
loudly proclaimed for fear that they may be forgotten.
This flaunting and over-emphasis also go well with the charge that the
press of to-day is commercialized. That accusation no one undertaking to
comment on newspapers can pass unnoticed. Yet why should journalism be
exempt? It is as freely asserted that colleges are commercialized; the
theatre is accused of knowing no standard but that of the box-office;
politics has the money-taint upon it; and even the church is arraigned
for ignoring the teachings of St. James, and being too much a respecter
of the persons of the rich. If it is true that the commercial spirit
rules the press, it is at least in good company. In actual fact,
occasional instances of gross and unscrupulous financial control of
newspapers for selfish or base ends must be admitted to exist. There are
undoubtedly some editors who bend their conscience to their dealing.
Newspaper proprietors exist who sell themselves for gain. But this is
not what is ordinarily meant by the charge of commercialization.
Reference is, rather, to the newspaper as a money-making institution.
“When shall we have a journal,” asked a clergyman not long ago, “that
will be published without advertisements?”
The answer is, never—at least, I hope so, for the good of American
journalism. We have no official press. We have no subsidized press. We
have not even an endowed press. What that would be in this country I can
scarcely imagine, but I am sure it would have little or no influence. A
newspaper carries weight only as it can point to evidence of public
sympathy and support. But that means a business side; it means
patronage; it means an eye to money. A newspaper, like an army, goes
upon its belly—though it does not follow that it must eat dirt. The
dispute about being commercialized is always a question of more or less.
When Horace Greeley founded the _Tribune_ in 1841, he had but a thousand
dollars of his own in cash. Yet his struggle to make the paper a going
concern was just as intense as if he were starting it to-day with a
capital (and it would be needed) of a million. Greeley, to his honor be
it said, refused from the beginning to take certain advertisements. But
so do newspaper proprietors to-day whose expenses per week are more than
Greeley’s were for the first year.
The immensely large capital now required for the conduct of a daily
newspaper in a great city has had important consequences. It has made
the newspaper more of an institution, less of a personal organ. Men no
longer designate journals by the owner’s or editor’s name. It used to be
Bryant’s paper, or Greeley’s paper, or Raymond’s, or Bennett’s. Now it
is simply _Times_, _Herald_, _Tribune_, and so on. No single personality
can stamp itself upon the whole organism. It is too vast. It is a great
piece of property, to be administered with skill; it is a carefully
planned organization which best produces the effect when the
personalities of those who work for it are swallowed up. The individual
withers, but the newspaper is more and more. Journalism becomes
impersonal. There are no more “great editors,” but there is a finer
_esprit de corps_, better “team play,” an institution more and more
firmly established and able to justify itself.
Large capital in newspapers, and their heightened earning power, tend to
steady them. Freaks and rash experiments are also shut out by lack of
means. Greeley reckoned up a hundred or more newspapers that had died in
New York before 1850. Since that time it would be hard to name ten. I
can remember but two metropolitan dailies within twenty-five years that
have absolutely suspended publication. Only contrast the state of things
in Parisian journalism. There must be at least thirty daily newspapers
in the French capital. Few of them have the air of living off their own
business. Yet the necessary capital and the cost of production are so
much smaller than ours that their various backers can afford to keep
them afloat. But this fact does not make their sincerity or purity the
more evident. On the contrary, the rumor of sinister control is more
frequently circulated in connection with the French press than with our
own. Our higher capitalization helps us. Just because a great sum is
invested, it cannot be imperiled by allowing unscrupulous men to make
use of the newspaper property; for that way ruin lies, in the end. The
corrupt employment has to be concealed. If it had been known surely, for
example, that Mr. Morgan, or Mr. Ryan, or Mr. Harriman owned a New York
newspaper, and was utilizing it as a means of furthering his schemes,
support would speedily have failed it, and it would soon have dried up
from the roots.
This give and take between the press and the public is vital to a just
conception of American journalism. The editor does not nonchalantly
project his thoughts into the void. He listens for the echo of his
words. His relation to his supporters is not unlike Gladstone’s
definition of the intimate connection between the orator and his
audience. As the speaker gets from his hearers in mist what he gives
back in shower, so the newspaper receives from the public as well as
gives to it. Too often it gets as dust what it gives back as mud; but
that does not alter the relation. Action and reaction are all the while
going on between the press and its patrons. Hence it follows that the
responsibility for the more crying evils of journalism must be divided.
I would urge no exculpation for the editor who exploits crime, scatters
filth, and infects the community with moral poison. The original
responsibility is his, and it is a fearful one. But it is not solely
his. The basest and most demoralizing journal that lives, lives by
public approval or tolerance. Its readers and advertisers have its life
in their hands. At a word from them, it would either reform or die. They
have the power of “recall” over it, as it is by some proposed to grant
the people a power of recall over bad representatives in legislature or
Congress. The very dependence of the press upon support gives its
patrons the power of life and death over it.
Advertisers are known to go to a newspaper office to seek favors,
sometimes improper, often innocent. Why should they, and mere readers,
too, not exercise their implied right to protest against vulgarity, the
exaggeration of the trivial, hysteria, indecency, immorality, in the
newspaper which they are asked to buy or to patronize? To a journalist
of the offensive class they could say: “You excuse yourself by alleging
that you simply give what the public demands; but we say that your very
assertion is an insult to us and an outrage upon the public. You say
that nobody protests against your course; well, we are here to protest.
You point to your sales; we tell you that, unless you mend your columns,
we will buy no more.” There lies here, I am persuaded, a vast unused
power for the toning up of our journalism. At any rate, the reform of a
free press in a free people can be brought about only by some such
reaction of the medium upon the instrument. Legislation direct would be
powerless. Sir Samuel Romilly perceived this when he argued in
Parliament against proposals to restrict by law the “licentious press.”
He said that, if the press were more licentious than formerly, it was
because it had not yet got over the evils of earlier arbitrary control;
and the only sure way to reform it was to make it still more free.
Romilly would doubtless have agreed that a free people will, in the long
run, have as good newspapers as it wants and deserves to have.
As it is, public sentiment has a way, on occasion, of speaking through
the press with astonishing directness and power. All the noise and
extravagance, the ignorance and the distortion, cannot obscure this.
There is a rough but great value in the mere publicity which the
newspaper affords. The free handling of rulers has much for the credit
side. When Senior was talking with Thiers in 1856, the conversation fell
upon the severe press laws under Napoleon III. The Englishman said that
perhaps these were due to the license of newspapers in the time of the
foregoing republic, when their attacks on public men were often the
extreme of scurrility. “C’était horrible,” said Thiers; “mais, pour moi,
j’aime mieux être gouverné par des honnêtes gens qu’on traite comme des
voleurs, que par des voleurs qu’on traite en honnêtes gens.”[1] And when
you have some powerful robbers to invoke the popular verdict upon, there
is nothing like modern journalism for doing the job thoroughly. Those
great names in our business and political firmament which lately have
fallen like Lucifer, dreaded exposure in the press most of all. Courts
and juries they could have faced with equanimity; or, rather, their
lawyers would have done it for them in the most beautiful illustration
of the law’s delay. But the very clamor of newspaper publicity was like
an embodied public conscience pronouncing condemnation—every headline an
officer. I know of no other power on earth that could have stripped away
from these rogues every shelter which their money could buy, and have
been to them such an advance section of the Day of Judgment. In the
immense publicity that dogged them they saw that worst of all
punishments described by Shelley:—
—when thou must _appear_ to be
That which thou art internally;
And after many a false and fruitless crime,
Scorn track thy lagging fall.
Footnote 1:
“It is terrible, but for my part, I would rather be governed by honest
men who are treated as though they were thieves, than by thieves who
are treated as though they were honest men.”—ED.
II
It is, no doubt, a belief in this honestly and wholesomely scourging
power of newspapers which has made the champions of modern democracy
champions also of the freedom of the press. It has not been seriously
hampered or shackled in this country; but the history of its
emancipation from burdensome taxation in England shows how the
progressive and reactionary motives or temperaments come to view. When
Gladstone was laboring, fifty years ago, to remove the last special tax
upon newspapers, Lord Salisbury—he was then Lord Robert Cecil—opposed
him with some of his finest sneers. Could it be maintained that a person
of any education could learn anything from a penny paper? It might be
said that the people would learn from the press what had been uttered by
their representatives in Parliament, but how much would that add to
their education? They might even discover the opinions of the editor.
All this was very interesting, but it did not carry real instruction to
the mind. To talk about a tax on newspapers being a tax on knowledge was
a prostitution of real education. And so on. But contrast this with John
Bright’s opinion. In a letter written in 1885, but not published till
this year, he said: “Few men in England owe so much to the press as I
do. Its progress has been very great. I was one of those who worked
earnestly to overthrow the system of taxation which from the time of
Queen Anne had fettered, I might almost say, strangled it out of
existence.... I hope the editors and conductors of our journals may
regard themselves as under a great responsibility, as men engaged in the
great work of instructing and guiding our people.... On the faithful
performance of their duties, on their truthfulness and their adherence
to the moral law, the future of our country depends.”
To pass from these ideals to the tendencies and perplexities of
newspapers as they are is not possible without the sensation of a jar.
For specimens of the faults found in even the reputable press by
fair-minded men we may turn to a recent address before a university
audience by Professor Butcher. Admitting that journalism had never
before been “so many-sided, so well informed, so intellectually alert,”
he yet noted several literary and moral defects. Of these he dwelt first
upon “hasty production.” “Formerly, the question was, who is to have the
last word; now it is a wild race between journalists as to who will get
the _first_ word.” The professor found the marks of hurry written all
over modern newspapers. Breathless haste could not but affect the
editorial style. “It is smartly pictorial, restless, impatient,
emphatic.” This charge no editor of a daily paper can find it in his
heart confidently to attempt to repel. His work has to be done under
narrow and cramping conditions of time. The hour of going to press is
ever before him as an inexorable fate. And that judgments formed and
opinions expressed under such stress are often of a sort that one would
fain withdraw, no sane writer for the press thinks of denying. This
ancient handicap of the pressman was described by Cowper in 1780. “I
began to think better of his [Burke’s] cause,” he wrote to the Rev. Mr.
Unwin, “and burnt my verses. Such is the lot of the man who writes upon
the subject of the day; the aspect of affairs changes in an hour or two,
and his opinion with it; what was just and well-deserved satire in the
morning, in the evening becomes a libel; the author commences his own
judge, and, while he condemns with unrelenting severity what he so
lately approved, is sorry to find that he has laid his leaf gold upon
touchwood, which crumbled away under his finger.”
While all this is sorrowfully true,—to none so sorrowful as those who
have it frequently borne in upon them by personal experience,—it is,
after all, _du métier_. It is a condition under which the work must be
done, or not at all. A public which occasionally disapproves of a
newspaper too quick on the trigger would not put up at all with one
which held its fire too long. And there is, when all is said, a good
deal of the philosophy of life in the compulsion to “go to press.” Only
in that spirit can the rough work of the world get done. The artist may
file and polish endlessly; the genius may brood; but the newspaper man
must cut short his search for the full thought or the perfect phrase,
and get into type with the best at the moment attainable. At any rate,
this makes for energy decision, and a ready practicality. Life is made
up of such compromises, such forced adjustments, such constant striving
for the ideal with the necessitated acceptance of the closest approach
to it possible, as are of the very atmosphere in the office of a daily
newspaper. But the result is got. The pressure may be bad for literary
technique but at all events it forces out the work. If Lord Acton had
known something of the driving motives of a journalist, he would not
have spent fifty years collecting material for a great history of
liberty, and then died before being quite persuaded in his own mind that
he was ready to write it. The counsel of wisdom which Mr. Brooke gives
in _Middlemarch_ need never be addressed to a newspaper writer; that he
must “pull up” in time, every day teaches him.
Professor Butcher also drew an ingenious parallel between the Sophists
of ancient Greece and present-day journalists. It was not very
flattering to the latter. One of the points of comparison was that
“their pretensions were high and their basis of knowledge generally
slight.” Now, “ignorance,” added the uncomplimentary professor, “has its
own appropriate manner, and most journalists, being very clever fellows,
are, when they are ignorant, conscious of their ignorance. A fine,
elusive manner is therefore adopted; it is enveloped in a haze.” To this
charge, also, a bold and full plea of not guilty cannot be entered by a
newspaper man. If his own conscience would allow it, he knows that too
many of his own calling would rise up to confute him. The jokes, flings,
stories, confessions are too numerous about the easy and empty
assumptions of omniscience by the press. Mr. Barrie has, in his
reminiscential _When a Man’s Single_, told too many tales out of the
sanctum. Some of them bear on the point in hand. For example:—
“‘I am not sure that I know what the journalistic instinct precisely
is,’ Rob said, ‘and still less whether I possess it.’