As to opinion, you have the same limitations.
If opinion can be once launched in spite of, or during the
indifference of, the Press (and it is a big "if"); if there is no
machinery for actually suppressing the mere statement of a doctrine
clearly important to its readers--then the Press is bound sooner or
later to deal with such doctrine: just as it is bound to deal with
really vital news.
Here, again, we are dealing with something very different indeed from
that title "An organ of opinion" to which the large newspaper has in
the past pretended. But I am arguing for the truth that the Press--in
the sense of the great Capitalist newspapers--cannot be wholly
divorced from opinion.
We have had three great examples of this in our own time in England.
Two proceeded from the small wealthy class, and one from the mass of
the people.
The two proceeding from the small wealthy classes were the Fabian
movement and the movement for Women's Suffrage. The one proceeding
from the populace was the sudden, brief (and rapidly suppressed)
insurrection of the working classes against their masters in the
matter of Chinese Labour in South Africa.
The Fabian movement, which was a drawing-room movement, compelled the
discussion in the Press of Socialism, for and against. Although every
effort was made to boycott the Socialist contention in the Press, the
Fabians were at last strong enough to compel its discussion, and they
have by now canalized the whole thing into the direction of their
"Servile State." I myself am no more than middle-aged, but I can
remember the time when popular newspapers such as "The Star" openly
printed arguments in favour of Collectivism, and though to-day those
arguments are never heard in the Press--largely because the Fabian
Society has itself abandoned Collectivism in favour of forced
labour--yet we may be certain that a Capitalist paper would not have
discussed them at all, still less have supported them, unless it had
been compelled. The newspapers simply _could_ not ignore Socialism at
a time when Socialism still commanded a really strong body of opinion
among the wealthy.
It was the same with the Suffrage for Women, which cry a clique of
wealthy ladies got up in London. I have never myself quite understood
why these wealthy ladies wanted such an absurdity as the modern
franchise, or why they so blindly hated the Christian institution of
the Family. I suppose it was some perversion. But, anyhow, they
displayed great sincerity, enthusiasm, and devotion, suffering many
things for their cause, and acting in the only way which is at all
practical in our plutocracy--to wit, by making their fellow-rich
exceedingly uncomfortable. You may say that no one newspaper took up
the cause, but, at least, it was not boycotted. It was actively
discussed.
The little flash in the pan of Chinese Labour was, I think, even more
remarkable. The Press not only had word from the twin Party Machines
(with which it was then allied for the purposes of power) to boycott
the Chinese Labour agitation rigidly, but it was manifestly to the
interest of all the Capitalist Newspaper Proprietors to boycott it,
and boycott it they did--as long as they could. But it was too much
for them. They were swept off their feet. There were great meetings in
the North-country which almost approached the dignity of popular
action, and the Press at last not only took up the question for
discussion, but apparently permitted itself a certain timid support.
My point is, then, that the idea of the Press as "an organ of public
opinion," that is, "an expression of the general thought and will," is
not _only_ hypocritical, though it is _mainly_ so. There is still
something in the claim. A generation ago there was more, and a couple
of generations ago there was more still.
Even to-day, if a large paper went right against the national will in
the matter of the present war it would be ruined, and papers which
supported in 1914 the Cabinet intrigue to abandon our Allies at the
beginning of the war have long since been compelled to eat their
words.
For the strength of a newspaper owner lies in his power to deceive the
public and to withhold or to publish at will hidden things: his power
in this terrifies the professional politicians who hold nominal
authority: in a word, the newspaper owner controls the professional
politician because he can and does blackmail the professional
politician, especially upon his private life. But if he does not
command a large public this power to blackmail does not exist; and he
can only command a large public--that is, a large circulation--by
interesting that public and even by flattering it that it has its
opinions reflected--not created--for it.
The power of the Press is not a direct and open power. It depends upon
a trick of deception; and no trick of deception works if the trickster
passes a certain degree of cynicism.
We must, therefore, guard ourselves against the conception that the
great modern Capitalist Press is _merely_ a channel for the
propagation of such news as may suit its proprietors, or of such
opinions as they hold or desire to see held. Such a judgment would be
fanatical, and therefore worthless.
Our interest is in the _degree_ to which news can be suppressed or
garbled, particular discussion of interest to the common-weal
suppressed, spontaneous opinion boycotted, and artificial opinion
produced.