OCR Text |
Show EDITORIAL RESPONSIBILITY. Editors neglect their work and shirk their responsibility. Desirous of filling their columns" with matter which is "spicv," and "takinv," and , knowing that weakness of poor l human nature which makes a good I slashing and cutting article upon a well ki.:. .-.ii p, r.-on mnro acceptable than t-uiufiy ur careful. Kober criticism, criti-cism, tuey eueourate earping. envious, envi-ous, or p:nUni-niiHly malicious persons to make the publications they control the vehicle ol their Bpleen. What is it to them that by so doing they are misleading their readers, or that they are allowing an ill-natured person to cast ridicule upon well-meant, well-meant, honest work; wheih, although honest and serviceable, may not be perfect, for little in this world is perfect? per-fect? Nothing. They get a readable article, get it, perhups, lor the more opening of their columns to the writer, who is paid for his labor by the gratification of his malice, and thai is all that they care about. Now this adds to critical dishonesty an editorial neglect of duty, which, considering con-sidering the responsibility assumed by an editor, is, to Bay the least, not highly honorable. It degrades journalism, jour-nalism, and the fact that the public, or a certain pari of it, re-lUlies such writing, is not justification of such an ollense against honor and comitv. 1 he conductors of the press, in its varied forms, are not iu the mere position of traders, whose business it is to supply that lor which people arc willing to pay. Their wares aro of a sort that exercise a constant influence upon morals and manners and intellectual intel-lectual development, and it is their duty to see that that influence is at least not a bad one. They may make a sensation or ellecl a large sale, and they may point to their succeas as their justification, but even as those who buy to satisfy their lower tastes, they degrade themselves and their calling. New York Times. |