CHAPTER IV
THE NEWSPAPER AS AN ORGAN OF OPINION
While the necessary characteristic of all periodical literature has been the conveyance of news of some sort, sometimes of a general and frequently only of a special character, there has run side by side with this function the conveyance of general information and of instructed comment and incidentally the opportunity of thus moulding public opinion. In respect of this capacity there has been the widest divergence in the character of newspapers and journals. So far as they are newsgatherers and news disseminators, all papers have the same task, even when there are enormous differences of excellence and subtle differences of intention. But it is otherwise with them as organs of opinion. This is an optional duty, which a great many papers avowedly reject. Others by professing impartiality seem to follow the same policy, while in reality they attempt to exercise influence by every indirect method. A minority constitute themselves or find themselves forced into the position of becoming the official or half-avowed leaders of parties or groups, while every word of comment or criticism is admittedly stamped with the current doctrines commonly held by its special band of readers.
It is the case of these latter organs which we have specially to consider in this chapter. There are so many ways of either guiding or forming opinion by editorial comment or exposition and by the publication of signed or unsigned articles of a more or less rhetorical nature that a complete analysis of the subject means little less than the history of the press. There are, however, roughly speaking, certain broad differences of method, which afford us means for a partial classification. It has been the habit for newspapers on the continent of Europe to become the mouthpiece of certain well-known journalists or groups of journalists, who influence and lead opinion by the publication of signed articles, for whose policy the individual journalist is himself alone responsible. In the United Kingdom the prevailing practice has followed another course. Anonymous journalism has been found in the end to be a more powerful political weapon, partly because reverence attaches itself more easily to the unknown and also because the shelter of corporate responsibility adds somewhat to the freedom of writing and very much to the fertility of invention. In America again the case is somewhat different. Both methods are there followed but they are employed subject to the supreme requisition made by the reading public for mere news, which it can analyze and judge for itself.
Just as we chose the American daily paper for the model of a newsgathering and news-presenting organization, so here we must admit that, as an organ for expressing instructed opinion not only on politics but on general topics, the distinctively English type of paper is a far more potent and more highly-developed instrument. In this respect the American press suffers severely from the general democratic contempt prevailing on that continent for expert opinion of all kinds. Since one man there is commonly reputed to be as good as another, so there is no room even in that huge population for any one whose opinion carries weight in any other sense than that a large number of people think that he adequately expresses their views or comes near to saying publicly, what privately each man feels and thinks more effectively for himself. Although there are to be found across the Atlantic many men of literary distinction and of a culture, which would be exceptional anywhere, they hold sway, journalistically speaking, only in elegantly printed magazines of small circulation and in social circles they are notable for an apologetic manner and deprecatory attitude to their countrymen, which sometimes seem odd to a stranger prepared to reverence their talents. Of course here as elsewhere there are exceptions, which we will come to later on.
So far as the American press is concerned the only sphere, where editorial influence is either secretly or forcibly exerted, is in national or municipal politics. Here the line is so sharply drawn between opponents that little or no attempt at impartiality is pretended and news and comment are both frankly presented by party newspapers with highly-coloured bias and vehement advocacy. Persuasion is not a weapon adopted by the American press, because during a political campaign no reader has time or inclination to read the other side. Sheer battering force or biting ridicule are the favourite weapons. Their ingenuity is directed almost entirely on personal matters rather than in the exposition of general ideas. More importance is attached to discovering some weakness of private character in an opponent or to attaching to his opinions and views some nickname with an unpopular connotation than in confuting his arguments or in examining the soundness and sincerity of his patriotism. The power effectively within the control of an American party organ can be exercised much more decisively inside the party before candidates are chosen than afterwards when the champions are selected and the battle is formally set. This choice of candidates is however itself painfully restricted by the almost monotonous sameness of character among the budding Transatlantic statesmen of the time. Pedestrian eloquence, high animal spirits, physical vigour and an unimpeachable rectitude in private life are indispensable requirements for success in public life in America and politicians happy enough to possess all these characteristics rather resemble each other on these lines to the exclusion of any marked or unusual individuality of character or intellect.
In France and Italy, where the signed article, speaking generally, prevails, the excellence and weight of the written word in the press has been profoundly modified and greatly extended. This authority, however, attaches itself by a natural law to the names themselves, as they become well known, and is apt to carry the fortunate individuals, who thus establish themselves in popular favour, up to greater heights than mere anonymous journalism can scale. Journalism thus becomes only the ladder of ambition, as far as the successful writer is concerned, and so far from being an end in itself, as it should be, is generally, no more than the first step on the road to politics, even more so perhaps in this respect than the profession of the law. As compared with the English system the power of the newspaper itself is very considerably curtailed. The advantage of the temporary possession of a meteor is a doubtful one. He may mingle insubordination with brilliancy and even where meekness and all the journalistic virtues are combined in one pen, the ultimate loss of it will be the more severely felt. The solid qualities on which the continuous influence of a great newspaper rests are difficult under these circumstances to build up and it may therefore be taken as an axiom that the cultivation of brilliancy in journalism is to some extent converse to the acquisition of permanent power and wealth by the press.
The favourable side of the continental system is the maintenance of a very high literary standard and the acceptance in metropolitan circles of only the finest qualities of artistic criticism on most subjects. Nowhere in the world is such power wielded by journalists in the realms of music, literature, art or the drama as in France or Italy. It is taken seriously by the cultured public which reads it, because it is good. It has to be good, because it is taken seriously. The standard set in these matters is quite unapproachable by the wealthy and enterprising English press and nothing less than a century’s education of the English people would be required for us to see how much in this respect our public taste is inappreciative and our general journalistic performances inadequate.
The German journalistic system is on the face of it not so far distinct from the general continental practice, except that they make less use of the signed article and newspaper properties are correspondingly more valuable. While the artistic and critical sides of German newspaperdom are distinctly inferior to the standards common in France and Italy there is one path in which their journals can claim pre-eminence in that they treat seriously and reverently all matters of science and learning, quite apart from any commercial demand in this direction from their readers. But after making this deserved tribute to German newspapers a foreign critic can best add to it by paying them the compliment of treating their newspapers as in a state of transition from Bismarckian serfdom to American commercialism. They combine some of the worst qualities of both. Of independent character in the English sense they have none, as they are too much under the heel of authority. Enterprise in the American sense is only adopted in unessentials. In the collection of news they are not more enterprising than the French and their standard of accuracy in reproducing it is not very high. Their papers are printed in Gothic type and written in a still more Gothic style. Neither in politics nor in commerce, nor in finance is their integrity above suspicion. Their influence with the public is very considerable, especially in politics, but the source of their power arises from the general respect felt by every loyal German for the ultimate and all-high authority which does not scruple or disdain to use a thousand methods of pressure in order to sway to its will the minds of men. Even where this authority is not itself ostensibly at work, as it often is, its powerful and indirect influence over the press is fertile in suggesting to the popular imagination those courses of conduct which will be agreeable to the powers that be.[5]
[5] Although this criticism in the text sounds rather harsh, it by no means equals many things said in the Socialist papers against the “Steel Press.” German papers have never recovered from the combination of bullying and corruption exercised by Bismarck, and still to some extent continued, and since his time great commercial concerns like the Stahl-Verband have had an almost equally baneful influence. I was unfortunately in Berlin at the time of the “Titanic” disaster, and looking at the records of that catastrophic incident even in the best papers, I was not impressed either by their critical power in assessing the value of news, or by their judgment in commenting on it.