Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1860-09-28
The Free List and tho Newspapers.


theatrical free-list. Perhaps It is hardly fair
to hold papers responsible on weekdays, for
any spasms of virtue that may aflict their
issues on Sunday, as it is sometimes thought
necessary to cover the slight fracture caused
in the Sabbath by issuing a paper on Sun
day, by sanctimonious mantle on that day.
Thus, when our new Democratic cotempo-
rary launched its Sunday issue, it had a
very affecting leader on the blessed Sabbath,
which was calculated to convince good peo-
pie that its sole object in issuing Sunday
paper was to keep the Sabbath holy; al
though, according to the law given from
Mount Sinai to the Jews, every one con-
nected with the Sunday paper, from editors
TO news-boys, would have to be taken with
out the camp and stoned. We formed high
hopes of a paper which started so devoutly,
but the fit of grace only lasted through the
first Sunday issue. Ever since that the
Sunday reader has been fed nothing but
partisan, political husks.
So the Engltirer's virtue may have been
only its Sunday suit, which is not to be
worn on working-days; for ifit really thinks
the dead-head system an evil, nothing is
easier than to reform it altogether, in its own
case. Why not show its faith by its works2
Why not enforce its preaching by example2
Is it because its preaching is on Sunday, and
its practice on week-days2 In case of ac-
knowledged social and moral evils, they who
preach reform are expected to show that
their own skirts are clear. People do not
justify their own immoralties because others
will not reform. What would be thought of
man who preached against gaming, drunk
enness or fornication, and who justified the
practice of them in his own case, because all
would not simultaneously reform? The En-
qairer is, at least, known on the free-list. If
it is SO Objectionable as that paper repre-
sents, why endure this2 We never heard
that the free-list was compulsory
Newspapers publish theatrical notices
partly as matters of news, as they do notices
oflectures and public meetings. Proprietors
of theaters consider it for their interest to
furnish editors and reporters with facilities
for making these notices. That is the found
alton of the free-list at theaters If it is
abused, it is not because abuses belong neces-
sariy to the system, but because some
people will abuse any thing. 1t is founded
on the interest of the theatrical proprietors.
The notices which they receive in the papers
give their performances more publicity than
all their advertising; and every editor who
has not imposed on the free-list, knows that
the obligation ison the side of the proprietors
of the theaters If the proprietors do not
think so, they have the right to cut off the
free-list and no newspaper man would have
so little Self-respect as to make that cause
of hostility. AS to the amount which the
free-list is used by editors and reporters, it is
merely>nominal. They are too busy to sit
out play, and their use of the free-list is
usually to drop in for few moments a Gus
tenn which is no infringement on the revenues
of the theater, nor often on the seats, when
they are needed.
ImmemOrial custom has given public jour-
mails the right to criticize theatrical perform
ances. 1t is, perhaps, the safest policy not
to abandon any admitted rights of the press,
reserving them for occasion, ifit is preferred
not to use them. 1t is said by the Enquirer
that there is as much propriety in criticising
the goods and business of merchants, as the
entertainment offered by theatrical mana
gers. The same may be said of criticism of
books, lectures, sermons and works of art
We are not disposed to curtail the privileges
of the press quite so radically as that There
is in the nature of the case an impos.
sibility in generally carrying out true criti-
cism. Its standard is supposed to be the
highest style of art, or, perhaps an ideal
perfection. Artists are exceedingly rare who
come up to the highest model. One or two
in each line sufiises for generations. Con-
sequently, most theatrical criticism must be
the application of high standard 10 per-
formanee which, compared with it, is inferior,
although it may be quite up to the popular
taste, and fully as expensive as the manager
ought to risk. Consequently, criticism, after
the highest standard, can only be constant
disparagement. This might be true criti-
cism, but it would not be just to the pro-
prietor, who has invested as much money as
he ought to in company, and who has one
fully up to the popular taste, and who may
deserve to succeed, even though he have not
a company of Garricks, or Keans, or Sid
donses. Therefore, we say that true criti-
cism-that is, after the highest standard-is
impracticable; so, also, it is neither useful
nor desirable.
Practical criticism can only be compare
tive. and must necessarily be without rules
or standard, and indefinite; depending on
the judgment, taste and good nature of the
critic, and graduated entirely by the world
he lives in, instead of any foreign or ideal
world; not assuming the stern aspect of the
critic in "Hogarths Laughing Audience"
as if determined tOshoW that he could never
smile, but willing 20 be pleased when the
audience are pleased, for they are really
sovereign in this matter. The right of criti-
cism is not the right to ruin the business Of
the manager, and the livelihood of actors,
merely 10 show the independence of the
critic or his high standard of art. The fact
that the company are not Talmas and
Raebels, is no warrant for this. The man
ager plays to suit the popular TASTE He has
right to do so, and the average popular
taste is as high standard as the critic has
any right to set Up.
There is in this city newspaper habit of