Newspaper Writing and Editing

by Willard Grosvenor Bleyer

Besides inaccuracy and incompleteness in presenting the news of the day due to the personal judgment of those responsible for the making of the newspaper, other forms of suppression or distortion of news are to be found in newspaper publishing due to the influence of various forces. It is to these influences that peculiar significance attaches from the point of view of the ethics of newspaper publishing, because in such cases the incomplete and inaccurate presentation of the news is deliberate.

Some Sinister Influences. The forces that make for the suppression and the “coloring” of news as well as for the restriction of editorial independence, critics of newspapers assert, are the result of the changes in business and editorial management during the last seventy-five years. The charge is made that too many newspapers are “edited from the counting-room.” Business interests, it is said, particularly those of advertisers, influence news and editorials. Because of stock company ownership and the absence of editorial management by men known to the public, as were the editors in the days of personal journalism, wealthy men or corporations, it is charged, have been able quietly to buy up the stock of some newspapers and through hired editors, of whom in these days the public knows nothing, to direct secretly the news and editorial policies for personal advantage. Some banks, these critics declare, have refused loans to newspapers the policies of which were inimical to the interests largely represented among the stockholders or the customers of the banks; and when loans have been made to newspapers by other banks, such indebtedness has sometimes been used to prevent the newspapers from maintaining or adopting policies hostile to their interests. So-called “yellow journalism,” critics of newspapers point out, furnishes another example of the commercializing of the press, because, in order to increase their circulation and profits, the publishers of “yellow” journals pander to their readers’ cravings for the sensational. A number of newspapers have published advertisements of fraudulent and questionable enterprises because of the additional revenues to be obtained from this source. Whether these charges are true of a number of newspapers or of only a few, the existence of these conditions and the possibility of these dangers make the subject one of vital importance not only to newspaper men but to every citizen of the country.

Suppression of News. If, for example, owners of retail stores request newspapers in which they advertise to suppress all news of elevator accidents in their stores because such news hurts their business, the newspaper publishers might consent to this suppression on the ground that it is more important to retain the good will and patronage of these advertisers than to give their readers the news of the accidents. The very existence of the paper, they may argue, depends upon these advertisers, and, after all, newspapers give their readers the accounts of so many other accidents that those concerning elevators in department stores will never be missed. This seems to be a logical argument for omitting news of this kind, but when the results of such suppression are traced, the action, it is realized, is unjustifiable. In the first place, elevator accidents are often due to carelessness and haste on the part of passengers, and newspaper accounts of them accordingly serve to warn many people to be more careful. Thus the publication of the news helps to prevent accidents. Again, the accidents may be due in part to the employment of young, inexperienced, or careless operators. When it is proposed to correct these difficulties by a local ordinance or by a state law providing that elevator operators must be over eighteen years of age and must be licensed as competent, the importance of passing such a regulation is more evident to the average voter if he knows of the frequency of such accidents. The suppression of news of these accidents would deprive most citizens of knowledge upon which to base an opinion as to the need of laws governing elevator operators.

The business interests of some cities, it is said, have urged newspapers to suppress the news of epidemics or threatened epidemics of such diseases as typhoid fever, smallpox, and even bubonic plague, because reports of the presence of these diseases in a city keep away travelers and hurt business. At first glance this plea might seem a just one, and records show that it has been successful in a number of instances. But the question inevitably arises, Has not the tourist, the buyer, and every one else who is planning to go to that particular city a right to know of the health conditions that prevail there, in order to decide whether he wishes to expose himself to the possibility of sickness and death? Again, Has not every citizen and voter of the city a right to know of these conditions, not only that he may protect himself and his family, but that he with other citizens and voters may remedy the conditions responsible for the epidemic and may provide for stamping it out? Reformers in some cities have declared that local newspapers have refused to give publicity to campaigns against graft and vice because the exposure of such conditions, the publishers said, would reflect on the reputation of the city and would hurt business. Others have said that newspapers have reported and upheld investigations of municipal corruption as long as those affected by such exposure were persons of little influence or importance in the community, and that as soon as more important business interests were threatened by the investigations, the attitude of the newspapers changed completely. The question to consider is, Should the business interests of the city be paramount to the welfare of all the people? The vital questions for editors to decide must be, Are newspapers in such cases doing their duty as distributors of complete and accurate reports of the news of the day? Are they not morally responsible when they fail to perform this duty?

“Coloring” the News. The so-called “coloring” or “shading” of news is in the same category as the suppression of news. It is possible to change the facts more or less completely so that a story not only is incomplete but produces a false impression on the mind of the reader. The sin is then no longer one of omission; it becomes one of commission. To belittle the campaign of the opposing political party, newspapers have misrepresented the size of the political meetings, the enthusiasm of the audiences, the arguments of the speakers, and in general, the success of the efforts to win votes. Candidates, likewise, have been assailed and misrepresented in news stories. In economic disturbances, such as strikes and lockouts, some newspapers have given their readers colored reports by “playing up” the disorder of the strikers, their threats of violence, and their unreasonableness in refusing terms of settlement. Other newspapers, representing the labor interests, have printed “shaded” reports to show that employers have treated their men unjustly, that the militia has been brutal, and officers of the law unfair to strikers.

Newspaper editors and publishers, in these and other instances, often maintain that they only print what their readers want. The questions involved, therefore, are, Do readers want unbiased news reports of the events of the day, or do they prefer to have them “colored” or “shaded” to favor the side in which they as a class are interested? Does the business man who takes a conservative, well-edited newspaper want news stories written to suit his point of view? Does the workingman who buys the Socialist daily or the labor union daily really want his news “shaded” to favor the cause of labor? In the case of a strike in which business or manufacturing interests are involved, do not both employers and employees want the actual facts as an unprejudiced reporter sees them? If readers do want “colored” news in such cases, are editors justified in departing from the truth in order to satisfy them?

Some men of wealth and some big business corporations have undoubtedly bought existing newspapers or have established new ones, secretly or openly, with the evident intention of using news and editorial columns to advance their own interests. Ambition to secure political office or power has obviously been the purpose of some of these men. Creation of public opinion favorable to their business interests has undoubtedly been the aim of other men and of corporations. Suppression of unfavorable news, and the “coloring” of other news to make it more favorable, as well as editorial argument and comment, are the means used to accomplish these ends. In one notorious example in a large city in the Middle West, reporters and editors were furnished with a list of certain business enterprises that were not to be mentioned in any unfavorable connection in the news, because the owner of the paper was financially interested in these enterprises. Although men and corporations have a right to present their side of any case through the medium of the newspapers, and although there may be no valid objection to the ownership or control of newspapers by men with political ambitions or by corporations, it is plain that such ownership and control are fraught with danger to public welfare by reason of the public opinion thus created.

Making News “Yellow.” “Yellow journalism,” it is conceded, has been developed largely by furnishing the readers with sensational phases of the day’s events. In order to make the everyday news seem more startling, large headlines with bold-face type printed in black, green, and red have blazoned forth the striking facts of the news. Sensational news stories of all kinds have constantly been “played up” prominently. When the facts were not particularly unusual or striking, they have been “colored” to seem so. This “sensationalizing” of the news has been the result of an effort to attract large numbers of readers and by enlarging circulation to increase profits. The effect on the readers of this giving over of a large part of the news columns to sensational news, and this “coloring” of news to make it more sensational, is, of course, to give them a distorted idea of current events. To what extent this distorted view of life affects the relation of these readers to society is the question to be determined in analyzing the effects of “yellow journalism.”

Three Causes. The three principal reasons for suppressing or coloring news, as we have seen, therefore, are: (1) the desire of the owners of the newspaper to use it to advance their own private interests or those of their party or faction; (2) the influence of advertisers and other business interests that wish to protect their own enterprises; (3) the effort to make the news more attractive and sensational than it really is in order to gain readers.

Effects of Adulterated News. Whatever may be the reason for the “coloring” or the suppression of news, the effect of this distortion or suppression upon the opinions and the votes of citizens is a matter of sufficient importance to the people generally to warrant careful consideration, not only by citizens but by newspaper men themselves. If the social and political interests of the community are vitally affected by news furnished in the newspapers, as has been shown in the examples given, publishers cannot claim that the purpose of the newspapers is to sell as many copies as possible, to get as much advertising as possible, and to give the people what they want to read, rather than to furnish their readers with a record of the interesting and significant activities of the day, as complete and accurate as it can be made. Like common carriers, such as railroads, the newspapers have a public function as well as the private one of making money, and that public function is to furnish news, the commodity in which they deal, in a complete and accurate form.