Show LIMELLOUS INTERVIEWS New York has been trying to amend its law as to libel4 The Bar Association Associa-tion is opposed to any change But 1 most of the journals of that city think some improvements are necessary for I the protection of publishers who do not designedly injure the complainant I who can prove the truth of their statements or who are not shown by evidence to have had any actual malice mal-ice toward the complainant One paper draws attention to the necessity of a law against bogus interviews inter-views That we believe to be a public requirement If it is not legally libel lous to publish as a mans utterances something that he never spoke and which perhaps he utterly repudiates it is morally libellous and altogether infamous and ought to be ounishable with severe penalties The modern interview is usually avery a-very interesting method of placing before be-fore the public the views of prominent promi-nent persons on current topics It is flattering to the individual interviewed and often profitable to the reader When it Is evidently a labored effort prepared with careful deliberation and L in ponderous diction it is readily distinguishable dis-tinguishable asto some extent a fraud That is to say the word interview in that caseis a misnomer It is simply an essayto which is added ome introductory in-troductory remarks and < interjected phrases for the purpose of beguiling the ordinary reader into believing that the interview was genuine A real interview has more life and snap to it and conveys in a more popu u tar ana acceptable manner the opinions opin-ions of the interviewed person on live subjects than any carefully prepared document can carry And it has the merit of being what it professes to be while the other is a deception But the pretended interview which is furnished by the person reported is a mild sort of prevarication and occasions occa-sions no great protest from anybody It is the fictitious and bogus interview that is to be utterly condemned And especially is fi outrageous and inexcusable inexcus-able when it conveys the very opposite oppos-ite of the victims views and position on the matter discussed Then it is a public offense and a personal libel This has become a veiy common thing A reporter who fails to obtain even an introduction or an audience with an individual to whom he may be sent will write up an imaginary conversation con-versation and put language into the persons mouth whom perhaps he has not seen which that person would resent re-sent with indignation What remedy is there in law for such an injury It ought to come within the lines of libel and be punishable at criminal law No respectable paper will pngage in or encourage such an imposition on the public and indignity to the individual individ-ual represented No reporter who commits such an offense ought to be recognized among the respectable representatives rep-resentatives of the press Bogus interviewing inter-viewing should be suppressed Public Pub-lic opinion should aid in stamping it out and if that is not enough the strong arm of the law should be invoked in-voked until it disappears from the public pub-lic prints |