OCR Text |
Show TH NEWSPAPER PSES3. David Dudley Field, the eminent New York barrister, has a forcible article ar-ticle in the current number of the International Law Iievfcic, on "The Newspaper Preaa and the Law of Libel." Although it may be too sweeping in its condemnation of the press as a whole, its strictures are in large part well merited and should receive the attention of the public. The injustice of Air. Field's denunciations denunci-ations lies in their lack of discriminations discrimina-tions between the press 03 legitimately conducted and "aatanic" journalism, and in his apparent assumption that criticism of public men by the newspaper news-paper is beyond the proviuco of the daily press. It will be recollected that Mr. Field himself has recently been the subject of severe censure by New York journals on account of his appearance as ono of Tweed's counsel, coun-sel, the point being as to the professional profes-sional morality involved in such defense. de-fense. Were a similar point generally gene-rally urged as one of morals, it would be difficult for a majority of the lawyers of any state to maintain their standing at the bar; but it would be manifestly unjust to charge the legal profession with pandering to crime on these grounds, although their motives in the defense of criminals may be strictly selfish. Equally UDjudt and partial are Mr. Field's assaulta upon the American preaa and his failure to discriminate between the legitimate criticism of public men in the interest of public morality and the vile sensational assaults as-saults upon individuals for selfish purposes pur-poses or to gratify motives of private or partisan revenge. That we have not misrepresented Mr. Field's position posi-tion may be seen by the following extract ex-tract from his paper: That there is something radically, flagrantly wrong in the conduct of most newspapers in tho United Stales, no candid person will deny. To at this something lies in tho general tone of editorial comment and the indulgence of 'personalities, is equally manifest That the right of reputation, that grtat right, without which all other right lo;e half their value, is habitually violated, and that there is no adejunte redress fur the wrong, aie palpable lacts. The demoralization de-moralization 13 widening, and has widened steadily for three-quarters of & century. Jellerson said, in hit time, that the pres3 was putrid. It ha? since become putrescence putritkd. The tiret I eliects is to make cowards of nine-tenths of our public men. These live generally in such sorvilfl danandi-nrn nnnn ili,.,nlr favor, that the lirst whiff of a newr paper, which may possibly aflect the votes of half a dozen unthinking voters, sets thom tremblirg. They make a mistake, for independence and pluck are more priz?d by the people than favor wi;h news-pipers. news-pipers. W hen a candidate f jr flLe makes his appearance, ho is availed of course; if he u elected, there follows a short lull, and then cornea an attack for ollicial neglect, or oflicial abu-io. Not long ago thero was appointed a new polico superintendent in this ci'y. Almost Al-most simultane iualy with notice t f his appointment, there carao notice of his trijl f r something. If llio newspapers are to be believed, scarce an honeet public pub-lic officer exists in the whole country. Does it not occur lo these traducers that the surest way to make men honest is to create a universal belief that they are so? As thing now go, all distinctions are confounded; the honest man and tho knave are alike suspected and alike de-uouncei; de-uouncei; and each has about the same chance of vindication before tha court or tho country. hespect fur public ollice, a respect which is even morn important im-portant to be mainlaiDd in republic than in a monarchy, seems to havo Mbd away. Hio president of the United States is Baluted in the newspapers ai " MoB Grant," and tho governor of Now York as ".Sammy." "What is tho explanation of theso phe nomena wo all know tbat the greater number of Ainsrican newspapers do not represent tho opinions, tho lat"s, or the morals of tho b'-tter classes of the American Amer-ican pcple. "Why is it so? To answer this question, wo have to consider tho general office of a newspaper, ond tho Peculiar influence which ali'-cl our own. 'i'ne primary office: is what lis name import, im-port, to publish news; the secondary one, to give a running commentary on men andltnngs thus brought into view. Tno publication of a newpapor is a trade. The object of tho publi-her is to make money. In the pursuit of this objtcl ho omplojs such editors as he thinks will gam or savo the most. Moral considerations are lecoodary. To fowl the appotite, Halter tho self-love, gati-fy tho curio-ity, or catch the whim of tho largest nuiobr r of readers at tho pn using moment, 13 the supremo motive. Tho lovo of truth, Uie credit) of right, the public good, kick tho benn, when weighed in tho icale againat the lovo of gam. All thnt contributes, or in mp-p'if'1 mp-p'if'1 to contribute-, to thrift, that n, whatever will increao tho number of sold, and of advurtieemenu haiKler m, au,.), M startling news, public or private scandal, ntriKttional com-"'"M, com-"'"M, tttngii are sought and used. As ttte pr-n of advortuwmofit beam a cr-tmri cr-tmri ratio to tho cirrulniiou, whatever wll procure thy moit buyers which is tho same as to say that whatever will satisfy tho wants or gratify the tastes of tho most readers will tind iU way into the paper. It Is mado up, not for the cultivated few, but tho uncultivated many. Whenever tho choice lies between be-tween ministering to the lower but wider and moro remunerative tastes on ono side, and on the other, informing and stimulating tho minds and hearts of intelligent in-telligent and thoughtful men and women, tho former will havo the advantage. Hence wo hear so much of the compa'a-tive compa'a-tive circulation' of tho different papors, tho angry contentions between them about it, and the absurd boasts, not of tho quality, but of tho nuantiiv lot loose. It would require space not now at our disposal to fully point out the weakness of this indiscriminate attack at-tack upon the newspaper press, which as a powerful and beneficial public institution and an element of progressive pro-gressive civilization stands higher than that of any other nation. On this point wo defy a fair comparison. Setting aside the indecencies of purely partisan journals, which still havo their uses, there is no press in whose columns tho courtesies and amenities of Bociety are more generally gener-ally observed than that of the United States. The growing tendency in this direction will be remarkable to ono conversant with tho history of American journalism during the last hundred ycara. The tone and character of the press have improved in a ratio corresponding with its advance ad-vance in news facilities and its wonderful won-derful development -as a profession and an art. Tho coaVse and intemperate intem-perate language employed against Thomas Jefferson and John Adams by the public prints of their day, could not now be used by the vilest and most scurrillous of our journals. There is a view of this Bubject, however, how-ever, in which Mr. Field's strictures become interesting. This will be apparent to the citizens of Utah, where, during the last decade, there has existed a press whose principal employment has consisted in publishing publish-ing the grossest and most malignant libels upon respectable members of the community wtio ao noi uappen w agree with its editors and managers on relieious and political questions. This journal w sui generis, it is the only member of its species in the country, and it has existed mainly through subsidies and donations, and, we ehame to say it, by the patronage of the United States government. Tho local ' community is not mainly responsible re-sponsible for its existeuce. The people who will publicly uphold up-hold its vulgarities, its indecent! attacks upon private individuals; its j unmanly slurs and inuendoes in re gard to respectable ladies; its constant misrepresentation of affairs which havo no rightful place in the columns of a public journal, are few. Its influence in-fluence is small and its reputation for truthfulness approximates to zero. A few public officials, who hate its bad manners and offensive style" are forced to cringe under its lash; but the best evidence of the Dublic estimation of its power to help or harm anyone is evinced in tho utter disregard which the persons libelled pay to its attacks. Like the serpent lashed into fury, it only stings itself in its frantic attempts I to wound ita enemy. A libel suit could be almost daily laid at its doors, but such action might bo re-! re-! garded as an evidence that the journal jour-nal in qutstion possessed some character char-acter for truth, and that its false scurrilities might prejudice the objects of its abuse. The lawless sheet is simply an embodiment of the vulgarity, vul-garity, the obscenity and bitterness ol its conductor!, who use the panoply of a free press to cover their poisoned traffic. Those who recollect how mob law played havoc with the independent inde-pendent pres3 during the Iato war will wonder that auch a sheet a3 the one referred to has so long existed in this community; but its continuance is the best evidence that the peoplo are far above the range of its paper bullets, bul-lets, and that it poeaesses no power to barm them. Still it is not an agreeable agree-able feature of the community, and is quite as useless as it is disagreeable. But the responsibility for it rests in a small circle.- That first cause once removed that ring dissolved, and the organ of defamation will go out likea dissolving view. From present appearances ap-pearances the ides of November will mark the first symptoms of its dissolution. |